Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 30 June 2022

[sanman]

Who are we now exporting Pralay to? Armenia?

[Aditya_V]

I wonder export to Armenia or they are traveling further north with everybody ignoring it.

[Dilbu]

I wonder export to Armenia or they are traveling further north with everybody ignoring it.

It was mentioned in news earlier.
Armenia Seeks Indian Pralay Missiles To Counter Israeli-Origin LORA; Here Is What Makes DRDO Missile ‘Lethal’

Armenia’s reported interest in acquiring India’s Pralay missile is a great opportunity for India. A Pralay export contract following the export of the Brahmos missile will likely bolster DRDO’s image as a missile exporter. Indeed, the DRDO has acquired the capability to develop all types of missiles through decades of sustained effort, and it’s time to capitalize on this painstakingly acquired capability.

Considering that the percentage of indigenous content in the Pralay missile would be much higher than the percentage of indigenous content in the Brahmos variant exported to the Philippines, India’s earnings per missile would be much higher.

Armenia reportedly wants to acquire the Pralay to counter the capability acquired by Azerbaijan through the purchase of LORA (Long Range Artillery) ballistic missiles developed by Israel Aerospace Industries.

LORA is a theatre quasi-ballistic missile with a range of 400 kilometers and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of 10 meters when using a combination of GPS and TV for terminal guidance.

The Pralay is a mobile canister-based surface-to-surface SRBM (Short-Range Ballistic Missile) with a range of 150-500 km. It was developed from the Prithvi AD missile of DRDO’s BMD system.

[Ashokk]

https://x.com/TheHemantRout/status/1832074611334258697
Hemant Kumar Rout
@TheHemantRout

#JustIn Strategic Forces Command of Indian Army successfully conducts night launch of nuclear capable intermediate range ballistic missile Agni-IV from Abdul Kalam Island off Odisha coast. The launch validates all operational & technical parameters of the 4000-km range missile.

[vera_k]

Doesn't look like this missile (Pralay) uses satellite navigation. In case it does, it would mean the navigation system has to be expanded too.

[mody]

Recently IAF carried out networked test firing of the Astra MK1 missile from Tejas fighters...

Video of the above post that mody made. Please click on the link below...

VIDEO: https://x.com/Kuntal__biswas/status/1829952592434315532

As I said in my original post, the only thing not mentioned or not clear from all the media reports available, is that can mid course guidance be provided to the fired missile, from the aircraft that provides the target tracking. This would mean passing on the control of the missile from the silent firing aircraft to the tracking aircraft or the mid course guidance to the missile would be provided by the firing aircraft, based on the inputs received from the tracking aircraft?

[Karan M]

Of course mid course guidance is what they are talking of. The whole network designation hand off is mid course guidance transfer. Aircraft A fires the missile, guides it to A, hands it off to B which takes over. They'll do multiple permutation combinations of the above to see which is the most optimal. Ideally, for run silent ops, you launch from A, B steps in only if the target is deviating significantly which means if the missile doesn't trajectory correct early, it will lose most of its energy when doing a late change and not applying proper lead.

[sanman]

It was mentioned in news earlier.
Armenia Seeks Indian Pralay Missiles To Counter Israeli-Origin LORA; Here Is What Makes DRDO Missile ‘Lethal’
...
The Pralay is a mobile canister-based surface-to-surface SRBM (Short-Range Ballistic Missile) with a range of 150-500 km. It was developed from the Prithvi AD missile of DRDO’s BMD system.

I thought Prithvi was a surface-to-surface SRBM.
Was there an adaptation made for AD purpose? I thought we had AD missiles like Akaash at that time.
So are they claiming "S2S(Prithvi) was adapted for AD and then re-adapted back to S2S(Pralay)"? Sounds weird.

[srai]

^^^


https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/09/13 ... ast-power/

[sajaym]

The launch validates all operational & technical parameters of the 4000-km range missile.

So a 4000km missile is tested within weeks of the 'commissioning' of an SSBN and we're supposed to believe it's a land-based missile test.

[Prem Kumar]

It is. MoD's official statement is that its an Agni-4 test by the SFC. No reason to disbelieve them when they are so specific

K4 testing from pontoon/Arighat would have happened long before commissioning & possibly hush-hush

[mody]

Of course mid course guidance is what they are talking of. The whole network designation hand off is mid course guidance transfer. Aircraft A fires the missile, guides it to A, hands it off to B which takes over. They'll do multiple permutation combinations of the above to see which is the most optimal. Ideally, for run silent ops, you launch from A, B steps in only if the target is deviating significantly which means if the missile doesn't trajectory correct early, it will lose most of its energy when doing a late change and not applying proper lead.

Midcourse guidance is not always the norm. We can have the following scenarios
1). Aircraft B detects and tracks the target. Passes on the targeting information to aircraft A. Aircraft A fires the missile. The missile seeker becomes active as it nears the target, locks on the to the target and neutralizes the target.
2). If midcourse guidance is required, one can have the scenario that after the missile is fired, the midcourse guidance or update can be provided by aircraft B directly to the missile. In this case, the missile needs to recognize the aircraft giving the information and accept the updated targeting information being provided.
3). The midcourse guidance info is passed on from aircraft B to aircraft A and then aircraft A gives this targeting update to the missile.

From the available public info I don't know which of the above three scenarios have been tested. The first one is standard and has obviously been tested, not just with Tejas but other aircrafts in IAF inventory as well. No. 3 is also obvious, though in this case the aircraft A doesn't remain completely silent as data link between the aircraft and the missile remains active.

Regarding no. 2 above, I am not sure if it has been tested and whether it was possible for the IAF before the advent of the Astra missile. Also this needs to be possible between all aircrafts in IAF inventory, including between Phalcon and Netra and fighter aircrafts. With the Astra missile, we should be able to do this.

For example Meteor missile on the Rafale will certainly not be able to take any guidance info from Su-30MKI or Phalcon or Netra. Likewise for Mica and R-77 missiles. Only the aircraft firing the missile would be able to talk to the missile or in the case of meteor, maybe another Rafale might be able to talk to the missile. With the Astra, the missile might be able to talk to all of our platforms (provided the Rafale has the Indian standard datalink) and would provide a paradigm shift for the IAF.

[Karan M]

Of course mid course guidance is what they are talking of. The whole network designation hand off is mid course guidance transfer. Aircraft A fires the missile, guides it to A, hands it off to B which takes over. They'll do multiple permutation combinations of the above to see which is the most optimal. Ideally, for run silent ops, you launch from A, B steps in only if the target is deviating significantly which means if the missile doesn't trajectory correct early, it will lose most of its energy when doing a late change and not applying proper lead.

Midcourse guidance is not always the norm. We can have the following scenarios
1). Aircraft B detects and tracks the target. Passes on the targeting information to aircraft A. Aircraft A fires the missile. The missile seeker becomes active as it nears the target, locks on the to the target and neutralizes the target.
2). If midcourse guidance is required, one can have the scenario that after the missile is fired, the midcourse guidance or update can be provided by aircraft B directly to the missile. In this case, the missile needs to recognize the aircraft giving the information and accept the updated targeting information being provided.
3). The midcourse guidance info is passed on from aircraft B to aircraft A and then aircraft A gives this targeting update to the missile.

From the available public info I don't know which of the above three scenarios have been tested. The first one is standard and has obviously been tested, not just with Tejas but other aircrafts in IAF inventory as well. No. 3 is also obvious, though in this case the aircraft A doesn't remain completely silent as data link between the aircraft and the missile remains active.

Regarding no. 2 above, I am not sure if it has been tested and whether it was possible for the IAF before the advent of the Astra missile. Also this needs to be possible between all aircrafts in IAF inventory, including between Phalcon and Netra and fighter aircrafts. With the Astra missile, we should be able to do this.

For example Meteor missile on the Rafale will certainly not be able to take any guidance info from Su-30MKI or Phalcon or Netra. Likewise for Mica and R-77 missiles. Only the aircraft firing the missile would be able to talk to the missile or in the case of meteor, maybe another Rafale might be able to talk to the missile. With the Astra, the missile might be able to talk to all of our platforms (provided the Rafale has the Indian standard datalink) and would provide a paradigm shift for the IAF.

Your scenario 1 is only possible at short ranges. This is called inertial only mode by some OEMs and can only be utilised at either short ranges or is used as a spray and pray tactic to force the opponent to disengage and turn out.

Scenario 2 is what is called as proper network guidance. Aircraft 1 fires, aircraft 2 or 3 or 4 guide. Advantage here is while aircraft 2, 3 are tracking from afar, shooter approaches passive and up close.

Scenario 3 locks both aircraft in place and is of limited use. Ideally you want a shooter up close and for it to cut and run.

Astra's ability to accept FCR data from a second platform and have a modular datalink setup has been known for a while now. Check the 3rd entry.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... wK-He&s=10

As to how many platforms can do this, all those platforms modified to carry the Astra most likely can. They will have the datalink setup and through the ODL be able to share FCR data with each other.

[basant]

In a completely n/w centric world, VL-SRSAM/MR-SAM should be able to fire taking cue from fighters/AEW. MR-SAM is network centric, so at least the capability should be there.

[SSridhar]

In scenario # 2, how is security of the data link ensured? In fact, the question of security of the data link exists even when the aircraft that fired the missile itself provides the mid-course correction as in Scenario # 3. At least one can expect a channel established a priori over which the two can communicate securely later on.

[basant]

Once a missile is fired at a closer range (by a stealthier a/c), the time required for the missile to reach the target as well as the time available for the target to perform evasive manoeuvres get reduced. This also requires that the guiding entity (fighter, AEW/AWACS or ground-based systems) to be able provide necessary power to guide in the hostile environment where electronic countermeasures would be deployed. Typically a missile in its terminal phase will switch from GPS/inertial guidance to active tracking. As other a/c such as Sukhoi have more power than Tejas, they can fly at a safer distance and act as mini AWACS. That was one of the reasons why several jingos wanted AL-41 on Super Sukhois that would have provided about 16% more power (besides higher fuel efficiency) for better electronic warfare.

[Karan M]

In a completely n/w centric world, VL-SRSAM/MR-SAM should be able to fire taking cue from fighters/AEW. MR-SAM is network centric, so at least the capability should be there.

The typical air to air missile seeker has limited scan angles and power output, plus duration of operation. This makes the accuracy available to the seeker so it minimizes its activation, very important. This is why a X band FCR is easiest to integrate. As India advances in seeker tech, and networking various classes of active and passive sensors, we can expect higher grade accuracy even with S band sensors allowing for missile guidance.

[Karan M]

In scenario # 2, how is security of the data link ensured? In fact, the question of security of the data link exists even when the aircraft that fired the missile itself provides the mid-course correction as in Scenario # 3. At least one can expect a channel established a priori over which the two can communicate securely later on.

The datalink transmission is highly directional (antenna designed for it), and encrypted, plus can use methods like spread spectrum and frequency hopping to reduce the chances of interception or counter jamming. Astra has a dedicated antenna on its launcher but RCI/DRDL can always relocate it and make a single comms solution for the whole aircraft.

Nowadays, even missile manufacturers are "opening up" their protocols to allow the standard software defined radio to communicate with the missile as versus special antenna, datalinks etc. This reduces the amount of extra integration effort involved in adding missiles to different launch platforms.

[SSridhar]

Thank you, Karan.

In the world of computing, the client and the server exchange and establish their credentials first before secure communication proceeds further during the session. I was worried about that aspect so that spoofing attacks in the garb of mid-course correction are avoided.

[Karan M]

Thank you, Karan.

In the world of computing, the client and the server exchange and establish their credentials first before secure communication proceeds further during the session. I was worried about that aspect so that spoofing attacks in the garb of mid-course correction are avoided.

Yes, same here, encryption plus hand shake protocols. Yes, spoofing will be attempted by countries like US with advanced systems, but as said directional RF tx make reception from third party and spoofing hard (but not impossible) and real time cracking the codes is also hard. Hence, its easier to just jam either wide band noise or deception, receive, change the pulse slightly and retransmit at higher power so the guidance chain is disrupted if the aircraft/missile receivers go for the higher power signal. But all this gets very complicated because of the directional nature of the datalinks and intermittent guidance signals, plus the need to do real time computation and retransmit. So it's hard for self protection suites on fighters to do all this, and they focus on a limited number of bands but are getting more and more sophisticated add on pods to address some new threats. Dedicated EW aircraft are a different deal though, like Rivet Joints (EC-135) or even Growlers with multi band jammer and highly automated controls. I would not be surprised if the US is leading in this arena. Even so, the fact that they are rapid rushing longer range AAMs into the Pacific theater (vs China) indicates these methods by themselves are insufficient or unproven.

[SSridhar]

Thank you once again Karan.

Even so, the fact that they are rapid rushing longer range AAMs into the Pacific theater (vs China) indicates these methods by themselves are insufficient or unproven.

Recently, PLAN reported that their naval assets were able to defeat the Growlers. But, then, China comes out every day with some breakthrough or the other. IIRC, the report said that the Growlers created a false target but the PLAN asset was able to see through that game. Then, knowing China's propensity for inflating everything and for creating false narratives, one can't believe everything that they say. But as you say we will have to contend with such scenarios.

[sanman]

What is this new missile being tested by DRDO? Alpha Defense says it could be a Long Range Attack cruise missile, saying it's got a turbofan (like Nirbhay) but a pointy nose like Russia's Kalibr (apparently the pointy nose helps the missile stay in trans-sonic regime in terminal phase)



Would this missile be for use against China, primarily?

[Karan M]

Thank you once again Karan.

Even so, the fact that they are rapid rushing longer range AAMs into the Pacific theater (vs China) indicates these methods by themselves are insufficient or unproven.

Recently, PLAN reported that their naval assets were able to defeat the Growlers. But, then, China comes out every day with some breakthrough or the other. IIRC, the report said that the Growlers created a false target but the PLAN asset was able to see through that game. Then, knowing China's propensity for inflating everything and for creating false narratives, one can't believe everything that they say. But as you say we will have to contend with such scenarios.

Well it's all about range. Growler puts out 65KW of power per GaN jammer. While incredibly impressive for a fighter class platform, the average ship can have radars at several multiples of that power. Even halved (the radar power has to travel two ways, the jammer one way), they can still overpower the Growlers radar, plus classified encryption, coding, real time waveform changes will make it's task harder. The Chinese are well ahead in their digital revolution, so will have software controlled radars too. Having said that, the Growlers task is to reduce the effective range of the opponent radars and make it that much easier for lower RCS platforms like the F35 to close in for their stealthy attack or launch new generation missiles versus the PLAN. The Chinese of course know this, so have invested heavily in digital, multi band networks that can saturate the target area and detect platforms optimised for 1-2 high end bands like the F22 and F35. So the US is now responding with the B21 raider, wideband stealth platform. Cat & mouse game.

But the US is also simultaneously investing in IRST, as they don't expect their radars to operate unimpeded and also in true LRAAMs, the AIM260 program for the USAF and the SM6 Air to Air version for the USN. In other words, they are taking the Chinese at their "word" and trying to outcompete them. I agree with you though, that generally the Chinese play themselves up a bit much and the end result of their braggadacio will be a US mil that will, despite heavy casualties, stomp them. I wish we too, politicians and mil brass had a similar mindset.

[Ashokk]

https://x.com/TheHemantRout/status/1834146969033605611
Hemant Kumar Rout
@TheHemantRout

People from 6 villages shifted to temporary shelters for 10 hrs ahead of a missile test from a defence facility off Odisha coast. DRDO is likely to conduct vertical launch of a SAM system. Notam issued for a range of 75 km.

[Ashokk]

https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1829858596131389561

[Ashokk]

https://x.com/TheHemantRout/status/1834175003245318406
Hemant Kumar Rout
@TheHemantRout

India test fires a short-range SAM system from a missile test facility off Odisha coast at 3.20 pm. Vertical launch of SRSAM, developed with indigenous technology by DRDO, successful: defence sources to @NewIndianXpress.

[mody]

@Karan as you rightly pointed out Astra is designed for buddy targeting and all platforms on which the Astra has been mated will be able to target enemy targets like Scenario 2 given above.
However, as I pointed out above, Astra is only now getting inducted and upto now, IAF did not have this capability. It exists for the Rafale and Meteor combo, but in this case only a buddy Rafale aircraft can possibly provide mid course guidance, once the missile has been fired. Netra or Phalcon or any other aircraft in the IAF inventory will not be able to do this.

I am not sure if the capability exists for the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo. I suspect that only scenario 1 or scenario 3 is possible for the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo. Su-30MKI has an Indian designed data link, whereas R-77 missile most probably uses a different standard to communicate with the firing aircraft. For the Mig-29s the IAF still prefers to use the R-27 missiles over the R-77 as the mid course guidance option on the Mig-29 might be limited. Note that unlike the Mig-29s the Su-30MKIs do not use the R-27s that extensively.

Now, with the induction of the Astra, all the three scenarios given above become possible and the Tejas, Su-30MKI, Netra (not sure about Phalcon) and in the future the Mig-29UPG will be able to work together and hence, for the IAF this will be a paradigm shift in how it employs its BVR tactics.

For scenario 1, generally the firing aircraft will be closer to the target, and hence it will not be simply spray and pray kind of tactic. The pakis used spray and pray king of tactic after Balakot, where the firing aircraft used its own radar to track the target and fired the missiles at almost the maximum range envelope. In buddy firing mode, the silent firing aircraft would be closer to the target and hence the missile would be fired much closer to its No Escape Zone (NEZ). Also, as the firing aircraft would not be emitting any signals, the target aircraft would get the warning only when the missile seeker would become active. However, this is the most vanilla buddy targeting mode and I think IAF already had this capability with the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo.

However, the first question that I raised still remains, as to the test that was conducted recently. Did IAF try out something like the scenario 2 or was it just scenario 1 or scenario 3. Theoretically the Tejas and Astra combo are capable of being employed in scenario 2.

For Scenario 2 to work, the missile should be able to recognize and accept the input from the targeting aircraft. I don't know whether this would involve some kind of a hand shake to validate each other and then pass on the updated targeting co-ordinates. Such kind of two-way communication, between a targeting aircraft, which should be farther away and a missile which is fast on its way might be difficult. Maybe the encryption used for the communication along with the message format itself might be a way for the missile to authenticate, as to whether the message is genuine or not.

[basant]

Are you asking for the specific protocol for communication such as Link 16? They are designed to be secure and jam resistant in hostile environments. As far as India is concerned, there is a very nice paper by Lt Col Vivek Gopal to give an overview. Discussing too much details here may not be desirable.

[SSridhar]

Discussing too much details here may not be desirable.

I agree. Let’s leave it at that.

[sanman]

[Karan M]

@Karan as you rightly pointed out Astra is designed for buddy targeting and all platforms on which the Astra has been mated will be able to target enemy targets like Scenario 2 given above.
However, as I pointed out above, Astra is only now getting inducted and upto now, IAF did not have this capability. It exists for the Rafale and Meteor combo, but in this case only a buddy Rafale aircraft can possibly provide mid course guidance, once the missile has been fired. Netra or Phalcon or any other aircraft in the IAF inventory will not be able to do this.

Netra and Phalcon have surveillance radars. They are not designed to provide fire control tracks to fighters. The angular resolution at range will be too large for a L band radar in particular unless a more precise X band is used. Netra has potential but will need extensive testing and the AAM seeker needs to be capable as well. As regards which aircraft/missile combos can do this, I wouldn't be surprised if Mirage 2000/Mica too can do this.

I am not sure if the capability exists for the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo. I suspect that only scenario 1 or scenario 3 is possible for the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo. Su-30MKI has an Indian designed data link, whereas R-77 missile most probably uses a different standard to communicate with the firing aircraft.

Missile datalinks are different from fighter datalinks, though in recent years both are being made interchangeable.

In the case of the Su30 it is fielding multiple datalinks, two kinds of Russian, Indian for sensors and missiles both. The Astra launcher has the missile datalink in it.

For the Mig-29s the IAF still prefers to use the R-27 missiles over the R-77 as the mid course guidance option on the Mig-29 might be limited. Note that unlike the Mig-29s the Su-30MKIs do not use the R-27s that extensively.

This is not correct. It is simply that the R77 stock is limited and airframe missile hours are valuable. So the IAF doesn't put up R77s unnecessarily. The R27ER has a longer range then the R77, so it complements the R77 but has limitations too (SARH).

Now, with the induction of the Astra, all the three scenarios given above become possible and the Tejas, Su-30MKI, Netra (not sure about Phalcon) and in the future the Mig-29UPG will be able to work together and hence, for the IAF this will be a paradigm shift in how it employs its BVR tactics.

Again, Netra is a S band surveillance radar. The current Astra is unlikely to be cued by it until and unless they test it out specifically for this. Future AAMs perhaps.

For scenario 1, generally the firing aircraft will be closer to the target, and hence it will not be simply spray and pray kind of tactic. The pakis used spray and pray king of tactic after Balakot, where the firing aircraft used its own radar to track the target and fired the missiles at almost the maximum range envelope.

Yes, which is why sometimes spray fire helps. Firing at close range is only if you want high Pk. You can fire from afar, your opponent doesn't know you've fired blind and goes cold. You then flank him or chase after him and gun him down with cued shots. Or you simply fire to turn him defensive and escape in turn.

In buddy firing mode, the silent firing aircraft would be closer to the target and hence the missile would be fired much closer to its No Escape Zone (NEZ). Also, as the firing aircraft would not be emitting any signals, the target aircraft would get the warning only when the missile seeker would become active. However, this is the most vanilla buddy targeting mode and I think IAF already had this capability with the Su-30MKI and R-77 combo.

Not necessarily undetected as both sides may have AWACS. Thing is buddy designation with proper midcourse guidance, complicates engagement geometry. I chase after 1 who fired at me and fire back. He turns reducing missile Pk, but a fighter from afar on the sides tracks and guides the missiles in.

However, the first question that I raised still remains, as to the test that was conducted recently. Did IAF try out something like the scenario 2 or was it just scenario 1 or scenario 3. Theoretically the Tejas and Astra combo are capable of being employed in scenario 2.

Scenario with MCG. That is what is network targeting. Aircraft one fired, aircraft two guided it in.

For Scenario 2 to work, the missile should be able to recognize and accept the input from the targeting aircraft. I don't know whether this would involve some kind of a hand shake to validate each other and then pass on the updated targeting co-ordinates. Such kind of two-way communication, between a targeting aircraft, which should be farther away and a missile which is fast on its way might be difficult. Maybe the encryption used for the communication along with the message format itself might be a way for the missile to authenticate, as to whether the message is genuine or not.

This is all part and parcel of the network targeting effort. Astra has a two way datalink able to receive and provide information with a compatible transmitter/receiver which is part of it's datalink and will function as long as the radar track is of sufficient fidelity. It functions with the Su30, Tejas radar data already, suitably processed by the mission computer and passed into the weapons control system for transmission by the dedicated Astra datalink.

[Karan M]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_( ... bvraam.png

You can see the antenna for the missile datalink on the launcher. This is what allows Astra to be used on multiple different aircraft instead of having missile datalinks built into either the radar or aircraft airframe itself. This is separate from the aircraft to aircraft datalink which is used by the fighters to transfer targeting information.

[mody]

You are right about the Netra. It only has S band radar. The Netra MK2 on the Airbus A321 platform is supposed to get a nose mounted X-band radar as well.

[Ashokk]

https://x.com/TheHemantRout/status/1834469924661596231
Hemant Kumar Rout
@TheHemantRout

2nd test of Vertical Launch Short Range Surface-to-Air Missile (VL SRSAM) from ITR off Odisha coast successful as the missile engages a high speed aerial target at a different altitude. Developed by DRDO, it can neutralise targets up to 80 km. One more round in the afternoon.

[Prem Kumar]

Though Rout is good with scoops, the 80 Km range is questionable & is not required for the Barak-1-like SRSAM role it plays

Maybe the Astra-2-SRSAM (when it materializes), will have an 80 Km range, but it will compete with MRSAM & Akash-NG at that point

[Karan M]

The VL SRSAM range is substantial versus non maneuvering targets and will drop depending on target class. A 80 km range against a non maneuvering approaching target at a specific altitude isn't out of the question either, depending on the missile size itself.

[Karan M]

Time to have a quick recap of where we are on our missile programs.

The DRDO has the following programs at the verge of completion.

1. MPATGM - headed for user trials
2. VSHORAD - ditto
3. QRSAM, cleared user trials, IA EOI awaited by BEL. IAF also intends to procure it (to replace their SA-8 units most likely)
4. VLSRSAM - headed for user trials
5. Nag, cleared trials, mere 400 ordered
6. SANT - no news yet
7. HELINA, Dhruvastra - token orders expected so far, around 200 each
8. Astra Mk1 -400 ordered, 500 more expected to replace R77.
9. Astra Mk2 - headed for user trials (hopefully soon)
10. Astra Mk3, a bit further away, but most important part, propulsion, proven
11. Akash Prime, 2 regiment indent placed by IA
12. Akash 1S, 2 squadron upgrade order placed by IAF
13. Nirbhay, inducted, limited numbers
14. LR LACM for IA and IAF: headed for user trials with Manik, IN variant to follow
15. SLCM for IN: In devpt, A2S and A2Sh roles both
16. Pralay, IAF and IA both want to induct it
17. Akash NG - ready for user trials. IAF wants to use it for Akash replacement for future orders
18. MRSAM - in production for all 3 services
19. AAD and PDV, BMD - LSP for Delhi
20. AD-1 tested, AD-2 due soon
21. ULPGM for UAVs, Nag derivative, LSP ordered by IA
22. Pinaka variants ordered by IA, guided Pinaka exported, yet to be ordered by IA
23. 120/300km variants of Pinaka under devpt by ARDE
24. Hypersonic Cruise Missile (active, scramjet) under devpt
25. Kusha PG LRSAM, 8 squadrons planned for IAF at cost of 5 S400 units (Rs 40K crore). Three missiles able to hit out up to 350 km. Variant for IN as well. Advanced stage of devpt.
26. CLGM for Arjun, ready for user trials

This is just from a quick recall. Am sure I've missed a bunch.

[Prem Kumar]

You have an amazing recall, Karan!

Just a few things to add:

Brahmos series
NASM series
Rudram series
SMART
Pralay/Agni variant for AShBM role
HSTDV demonstrator
STAR/LFRJ

[mody]

Time to have a quick recap of where we are on our missile programs.

The DRDO has the following programs at the verge of completion.

1. .............
11. Akash Prime, 2 regiment indent placed by IA
12. Akash 1S, 2 squadron upgrade order placed by IAF
...

This is just from a quick recall. Am sure I've missed a bunch.

Karan what's the difference between Akash Prime and Akash 1S? I thought the Akash 1S (Akash with RF seeker), had been remained as Akash Prime.

8 Squadrons of Akash had been inducted and a second lot of 7 squadrons had been ordered. It was rumoured that some of these squadrons would be changed to Akash Prime/1S and some of the older squadrons, already in service would also be upgraded with new missiles with the RF seekers.
Have any additional squadrons been ordered? Any idea about whether the follow on order for 7 squadrons has been delivered?

[Karan M]

You have an amazing recall, Karan!

Just a few things to add:

Brahmos series
NASM series
Rudram series
SMART
Pralay/Agni variant for AShBM role
HSTDV demonstrator
STAR/LFRJ

Thank you, but clearly I missed a bunch.

1. Rudram Series
Rudram 1 - NGARM, ready for/under user trials, IAF has moved a LSP indent
Rudram 2 - ARM/ASM, test fired at advanced stage of development already
Rudram 3 - ARM/ASM
Rudram 4 - LRSOW (Long Range Stand oof Weapon)
2. SAAW - with propulsion, reportedly under discussion (cleared?)
3. NASM - ER, LSP, 20 units (clearly under user evaluation)
NASM- MR, under devpt, 300 km class
4. SMART for long range submarine/naval engagement, no clear indication by IN yet of procurement strategy
5. Agni P variant for long range engagement of ships.
LRAShM, again based on above or entirely new system
6. HSTDV ---> HCM program
7. STAR aka LFRJ, desi LFRJ, used as target, A2A and A2S missions all.