Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 05 Apr 2009 05:31

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2009 10:11

@PratikDas: Every one is entitled to his/her opinion but it would be great if same is based on facts/educated guesses and not some wild speculations. That article and one subsequently posted by Vipul above clealry indicates that is an 'inspired' series with inside info much like the DRDO bashing in IE. As for the track record, both the parties are guilty of commission and ommisions. IA for asking for the moon and DRDO etal promising to deliver the same in double quick time when the ability or expertise was simply not there. LCA is case in point and after reading AM Philip Rajkumars book, I'll place the blame squarely at DRDO/HAL's doorsteps for the delay. It is only recently that DRDO has started delivering the long promised goods and whenever they have done so, the product has been accepted by the Defence Forces. And do you think IA agreed to buy the Brahmos because of a stupid article in Telegraph? Only thing it does is lead to bad blood between the Services and Producer. So next time DRDO/Mr. Pillai sit across the table to discuss something new, what do you think will the atitude of the IA/other Services will be? And what prevents Defence Services for raising the bar just to scuttle the DRDO product? Is that the route we want to take. These articles are only good for us poster to debate and decry, nothing else.Case in point is Akash.

@Narayana, Offering earlier denied technology to scuttle the domestic product is one thing but 'relaxing' MTCR ala the Nuclear Deal is completely different ball game and cannot be done unilaterally even by the mighty USA. Remember the circus for NSG approval?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 05 Apr 2009 10:26

Rohitvats, this is not Pakistan. The Indian Army don't rule this country. They have a boss and he calls the shots.

The Indian Army will buy what they are told to buy - if someone bothers to tell them that they don't have a choice.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Apr 2009 10:42

MTCR is a joke ; case in point heard about 'sub critical testing' wrt CTBT ; how difficult it is to export a scaled down version of Tomahawk with a small fuel tank onlee which limits range to allegedly 299.99999 km .

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Apr 2009 10:50

Brahmos Air to Air version?

If its not a typo/DDM than it is interesting...a AWACS killer in making?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2009 12:16

PratikDas: You're flying into a tangent where none exists. Yes, India is no Pakistan and IA is no PA but does that mean IA and others are dumnf*@%^ and need to be told what to buy? And why would you want to do so? So that in the name of indeginisation you ram something down their throat which doe not meet the bill? I'm again reiterating, get out of the DRDO-Good and IA-Bad mentallity. See the thing in perspective and then comment.

negi: I know all the international treaties are hogwash for the benefit of the few. What I'm saying is that for the amount of effort required to by pass the MTCR ( for a full range version of Tomahawk) the benefits aren't too many. Its not as if we are going to order 1500 TLACM....short range version ala 290kms Brahmos is well any way below the MTCR radar.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 05 Apr 2009 13:26

Missile Man Sivathanu Pillai’s successful rapid-fire demonstrations of the BrahMos have scuttled a move in the army to import the Tomahawk or its clones and it is now set to order 260 of the home-grown weapons system.

260 systems

so it translates to how many missiles? All simultaneously hitting there musharraf's in 15 minutes

even shankarosky has not written such scenario. Shankarda/vivek boss hope u guys are seeing this

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 05 Apr 2009 13:54

The flat steel cover on the vertical launch canister opened up as the spring lock eased open on electrical command and at the same time the solid booster igniting pyros ignited. The sleek missile lifted out of the canister vertically in a plume of smoke and thunder followed by a pillar of bright orange flame reached an altitude of 300 ft and then tipped over as the ram jet engine kicked in and black dense smoke replaced the bright orange exhaust of solid booster.
The missile streaked low over the inky blue surface of the ocean on a pre programmed radar evading mode,flying barely at 100 ft over sea level it took an elongated S path to target entering Karachi airspace from north west as the terminal guidance system kicked in and made the final course correction and then climbed up to 500 ft right over the target building on Clifton road and then dived flat out .
The 250 kg high explosive warhead was designed to take out an aircraft carrier; the small and posh villa of the terrorist could not even contain the shock waves of explosion. The building with its occupants disintegrated in a blaze of heat and fire. All that was left was the memories of a gangster and few splotches of blood and tissue on the walls of a nearby building and the crater on the ground .

always believed in Brahmos 2

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 05 Apr 2009 14:02

Missile Man Sivathanu Pillai’s successful rapid-fire demonstrations of the BrahMos have scuttled a move in the army to import the Tomahawk or its clones and it is now set to order 260 of the home-grown weapons system.

Each of the two new BrahMos cruise missile regiments would have between four and six batteries of three to four Mobile Autonomous Launchers that can be connected to a general mobile command post.

What will be the structure of a Brahmos regiment? If we assume that by 260 weapon system the author wants to say 260 missiles then one regiment should have 130 missiles.

Going by the second quote, one regiment should have [ 4X3 (one battery) X 6 (total batteries in one regiment) ] = 72 missiles at max. What am I missing?

Cheers....

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 05 Apr 2009 14:16

Shankar wrote: always believed in Brahmos 2

it must be used there only

H.B.Krishna · Post by **H.B.Krishna** » 05 Apr 2009 14:43

rohitvats wrote:PratikDas: You're flying into a tangent where none exists. Yes, India is no Pakistan and IA is no PA but does that mean IA and others are dumnf*@%^ and need to be told what to buy? And why would you want to do so? So that in the name of indeginisation you ram something down their throat which doe not meet the bill? I'm again reiterating, get out of the DRDO-Good and IA-Bad mentallity........

Dear Rohit,
As long as we see Army / DRDO as institutions, your point is fine.Army is our Rakshak, and DRDO is (should be !) the black smith! But there is another dimension of individual aspirations and ego coming into play....
Indegisation is a very important factor. The history has taught us about that factor in a rather bad way. When there is a war, all your assumption (esp on allies) will go wrong. Anybody could play hardball and play spoil sport. Being in control of factors is a important requirement. Sorry for the lecture, I know you don't need one as you are aware of it (and the typical case of France and UK).
Back to point...Even if DRDO is not upto mark we NEED a desirable level of indeginisation. But then that is not the case here. Clearly some products of DRDO are top notch. We are being offered a competitive product only when a in-house product makes mark. But this is no coca-cola to turn a blind eye on it. When we consider the political, economic and strategic costs associated with these "western maal", atleast some of our in-house gizmos are better.
Nobody individual is sacrosanct, but Army and DRDO as institutions....they are, no matter how civvie oriented we are.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 05 Apr 2009 15:12

^^Perhaps you misunderstood rohitvats. I don't think he ever said anything against indenization. IMO the point he is making is, there is too much fanboyism both in BR members and in media. People fail to see mistakes of one organization while they fail to see any good in other (and it goes both ways). DRDO certainly has had many successes and we are all proud of it, but it's list of failures is also too long to be ignored. So you cannot blame IA if it remains skeptical. Also you cannot blame IA for not accepting something which it feels is sub par.

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 05 Apr 2009 19:11

Indigenization as a policy is well and good and it is easy for people on this forum to sit in the comfort of their homes and make that argument but if you were out there fighting and your life depended on it I am sure you would want the best weapon (irrespective of origin) to take to the fight. I dont think it is fair to accuse the IA, IAF & IN of corruption (without providing proof) everytime they pick a foreign system as they are the ones putting their lives on the line and should be the ones to decide what to use to defend themselves.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2009 19:27

PrajitGaur: Thank you for summing up what I was trying to say. As for indeginisation, yes it is an important aspect but not an excuse for sub-par performace. As for example of US/UK/France and other countries which have followed the iteration route to develop their own products, please understand that these countries or their Armed Forces did not have alternate choices. They are the harbingers of modern weapon tech in lot many fields. So if M1 Abraham wasn't exactly a super-duper tank when it was initially introduced, it was the best that US MIC could produce at that time and US Army did not have recourse to any thing else. Hence, it was inducted and iteration carried on later. Most of weapon systems in the west have followed this route.
The story is far more complex in our case. We have a scenario (at least today) where the MIC of various countries are ready to offer mature products. At this juncture, you cannot expect the IA or others to wait for donkey years or support a sub-optimal product in name of indeginisation when something is ready for induction now.The pragmatic way forward is JV and not try and re invent the wheel. It will help us to deliver cutting edge weapon syetems in acceptable time and also insure inflow and assimilation of new technology.

H.B.Krishna · Post by **H.B.Krishna** » 05 Apr 2009 22:38

rohitvats wrote: As for indeginisation, yes it is an important aspect but not an excuse for sub-par performace.

Guess we are talking about Brahmos, which is peerless AFAIK. Tom Tom missile will find its match with Nirbhay.

As for example of US/UK/France and other countries which have followed the iteration route to develop their own products....

You misunderstood me. I actually compared France with UK. UK is often made a jackass by going for Uncle maal, while French are better off with more indigenous products

At this juncture, you cannot expect the IA or others to wait for donkey years or support a sub-optimal product in name of indeginisation when something is ready for induction now.

Ulta here ?? DRDO - bad , Army - good

The pragmatic way forward is JV and not try and re invent the wheel. It will help us to deliver cutting edge weapon systems in acceptable time and also insure inflow and assimilation of new technology.

Again we are talking about Brahmos which is a JV and no re-inventing here...For all others like Akash, Arjun et-cetera why nobody asked for JV when those projects were in drawing board. Now they are out, and they are not inferior to any. The point is that we are not Porkis to do re-painting...if you mean that

Lets not start a flame war here and fill trash here...People like me often visit here for information..not arguments. If you still dont agree...so be it...nothing personal...Let is agree to disgree.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Apr 2009 23:33

rohitvats wrote:PrajitGaur: Thank you for summing up what I was trying to say. As for indeginisation, yes it is an important aspect but not an excuse for sub-par performace. As for example of US/UK/France and other countries which have followed the iteration route to develop their own products, please understand that these countries or their Armed Forces did not have alternate choices. They are the harbingers of modern weapon tech in lot many fields. So if M1 Abraham wasn't exactly a super-duper tank when it was initially introduced, it was the best that US MIC could produce at that time and US Army did not have recourse to any thing else. Hence, it was inducted and iteration carried on later. Most of weapon systems in the west have followed this route.
The story is far more complex in our case. We have a scenario (at least today) where the MIC of various countries are ready to offer mature products. At this juncture, you cannot expect the IA or others to wait for donkey years or support a sub-optimal product in name of indeginisation when something is ready for induction now.The pragmatic way forward is JV and not try and re invent the wheel. It will help us to deliver cutting edge weapon syetems in acceptable time and also insure inflow and assimilation of new technology.

You are telling only part of the story. What other various MICs are trying to offer mature products is becoz what our scientists/ engineers/technicians toiled for several years in re-inventing the wheel. I couldnt get the name of the IAF officerat this time. In his words, without the developments of local products, we were not in a position to judge even the correct price of products being offered for sale. So much so forth. What we are today is all becoz of re-inventing the wheel.

Why Americans are offering next gen Paveway bombs ? Becoz, we re-invented the wheel and produced Sudharshan. Intially we were offered only PAC-2 before we conducted ABM PAD test. Now they are desperate to sell the PAC-3 and we told them only at systems level and no products. Why ? Becoz we re-invented the wheel. In case of LCA, why foreign MIC accepted to offer help to reduce the testing time. Becoz they said, it is only a matter of time they will get there so we decided to chip in to hasten the process. Incase of Maraging Steel used in missile frames, the same foreign MIC came to offer them, only after we started producing them. Before that it was embargoed after the POK-II test. There are innumerable examples. Even in case of JV, Can we ever dream of Israel partnering with Srilanka in producing Barak NG? For successful JV, you need to be in position to offer something back. Otherwise it is as good as buying the product at higher cost. And how you could offer something without toiling hard in re-inventing the wheel? IA could lick the tongue at "Mature products" that are offered becoz of some bunch of Idiots toiling for years in re-inventing the wheel in secluded location thinking of leading India in achieving technological independece from foreign powers. Otherwise never every dream of laying the hands on latest "Mature products".

As for example of US/UK/France and other countries which have followed the iteration route to develop their own products, please understand that these countries or their Armed Forces did not have alternate choices.

What about the US tanker deal. Why France went the Rafael way ? It is not like as if no alternates are available, they know how hard they developed their MIC. In trying times, only their MIC came to help and they know the value of it to preserve it. In case of IA, being a British Raj Army descendant, it was well accustomed to the practise getting weapons from "Masters" without going through the torturous process other Army went through in safeguarding their interest. After Independence it was UK, then USSR. So it didnt understood fully the value of local MIC, I say.

rohitvats wrote:So next time DRDO/Mr. Pillai sit across the table to discuss something new, what do you think will the atitude of the IA/other Services will be? And what prevents Defence Services for raising the bar just to scuttle the DRDO product? Is that the route we want to take.

From these statements, I think you inadvertently let the truth out that in your opinion IA officiers care more about their ego than national interest. Becoz an article praised DRDO instead IA, IA officiers will scuttle the deal ?- nice attitude.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 06 Apr 2009 02:25

^^Who said anything against so called "reinventing the wheel"?Everyone agrees that if it is in our Nation's interest to develop something by ourselves (like missile defense), there is nothing wrong with it. However if it jv is more suitable (eg barak 8 and Bramhos), then we should go for it. It all depends on the particular case.

However, I think we have gone way OT here. The discussion was about IA v/s DRDO scenario created by media and many BR members in BRAMHOS case. And as we see that it was sufficient to nearly cause a flame war. This shows the level of fanboyism prevalent here.
People fail to see mistakes of one organization while blaming the other for everything. Please try to keep perspective here. Both IA and DRDO are to be blamed for many things. One would do well to consider the point of view of both organizations before starting to bash a particular one.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Apr 2009 02:40

Parijat Gaur wrote: People fail to see mistakes of one organization while blaming the other for everything. Please try to keep perspective here. Both IA and DRDO are to be blamed for many things. One would do well to consider the point of view of view of both organizations before starting to bash a particular organization.

Gaur,
When the first test failed, wasnt there a series of articles in ALL major newspapers attacking DRDO. This is after all a one single article in a not-so-major but important newspaper. Note that this was after the initial attacks.
Think of this as DRDOs panwalla getting back at IAs paanwaala for what he did after the first test - take this as just another perspective and leave it.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 06 Apr 2009 12:16

Shankar wrote:always believed in Brahmos 2

Just to remind... its now BrahMos 2, but BrahMos Blk II..

... now imagine how much more TFTA pakiass must get when the Mk.2 comes out.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 06 Apr 2009 14:36

k prasad wrote:
Shankar wrote:always believed in Brahmos 2
Just to remind... its now BrahMos 2, but BrahMos Blk II..

... now imagine how much more TFTA pakiass must get when the Mk.2 comes out.

Its just a matter of few days. They must have ordered something more 'advanced' then Babur from Chinese. All needs to be done is just paint job with different colour.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 06 Apr 2009 15:16

Rohitvats, I don't need to be told by you what to post or not to post. Refrain from doing so. Your condescending attitude is entirely unwelcome. To you and Parijat Gaur I'd like to be clear that I'm no fanboy. Do not ask me to think before I post. Thanks for stating the bloody obvious.

I stand by the argument I made earlier. Brahmos block II is an incredible achievement and military big wigs do indeed need to be reminded every now and then who is boss. It not sub-par. It is in fact above par! Get that straight.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 06 Apr 2009 17:21

PratikDas wrote:To you and Parijat Gaur I'd like to be clear that I'm no fanboy.

I did not mean to call you a fanboy. I was talking in general.

PratikDas wrote: I stand by the argument I made earlier. Brahmos block II is an incredible achievement and military big wigs do indeed need to be reminded every now and then who is boss. It not sub-par. It is in fact above par! Get that straight.

And when did anyone has ever doubted the capability of Bramhos block II in this forum? With whom are you exactly arguing?

PratikDas wrote: military big wigs do indeed need to be reminded every now and then who is boss.

So, who is the boss? DRDO?

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 06 Apr 2009 17:45

Rohitvats, nobody wants to throw substandard equipment down the throat of IA,IAF or IN.every one cares for the soldiers life,The question is of the strings attached and reluctance of armed forces to induct desi stuff.the same Bosses are ready to gobble substandard/yet to be tested - T-90s,low config mig 29's,su-30's,barak-I without a hiccup.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Apr 2009 19:30

PratikDas wrote:Rohitvats, I don't need to be told by you what to post or not to post. Refrain from doing so. Your condescending attitude is entirely unwelcome. To you and Parijat Gaur I'd like to be clear that I'm no fanboy. Do not ask me to think before I post. Thanks for stating the bloody obvious.

I stand by the argument I made earlier. Brahmos block II is an incredible achievement and military big wigs do indeed need to be reminded every now and then who is boss. It not sub-par. It is in fact above par! Get that straight.

Why all this nonsence? Who asked you not to post? Did you even read what I posted or did you simply fly of into a rage and wrote the above BS? I do not have condescending attitude against anyone; it is you seem to be insecure about God knows what? Get off your high horse and know all attitude. There are other posters who disagree with what I wrote and have been civil with their arguments withiout name calling. Please learn some etiquettes.

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 06 Apr 2009 20:38

India: Bribes Could Terminate Deal with Israel

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Apr 2009 20:39

@H.B.Krishna: I'm not trying here to pitch one organization against the other. You've selectively quoted my post to put forth your arguments. Did I diss Brahmos and call it below par? All I meant was IA has the right to be fully satisfied with a system before agreeing to induct it. Now before you jump on me about IA showing partiality for foreign products and accepting them without being critical enough of them, do you think it is good or bad? And can anyone name a sub-standard foreign product that has been inducted in the IA in the past? (Pls do not mention the T-90 and Arjun debate....I know IA is till its eyeballs in sh*t in this case). All I'm saying is two wrongs do not make a right. If I extend your argument furhter, should IA have accepted Brahmos Block II after the 1st test itself because it made the mistake of inducting foreign material without being critical enough?
P.S - Nor I'm being personal here. Simply using my priviledge of debating with a fellow poster

Kanson: You've taken the argument into a totaly different category. PLease give me some time, I'll reply to your post.But as for this:

From these statements, I think you inadvertently let the truth out that in your opinion IA officiers care more about their ego than national interest. Becoz an article praised DRDO instead IA, IA officiers will scuttle the deal ?- nice attitude.

I did not inadvertently let anything slip. It is your opinion of what I am trying to say. All I was refering to was that it will lead to bad blood between the user and producer. If that article had praised the DRDO, it would have been great for they deserve every bit of it. My problem is that it has been used to launch an attack at IA with selective quoting of facts. As for attitude of IA and the opinion of its men, I do know a thing ot two and am in position to put my pov in open rather than beat about the bush.

ravi_ku: When the 1st test failed, the articles in the press were not from the IA nor did IA release any info to the press. The details of the test and what went wrong were infact posted on this forum by one of the posters.

Think of this as DRDOs panwalla getting back at IAs paanwaala for what he did after the first test - take this as just another perspective and leave it

It is exactly this mentality of getting back that I'm trying to highlight is not good for anyone. Did IA release the parameters of 1st or subsequent tests and the what was the failure with them? Do we want the IA and DRDO to be on the same side or opposite?

narayana: I know what you're getting at. I agree. But as I said earlier, are we using that as an argument for inducting the Brahmos Block II? Or the merit of the system? The merit which has been proved now and not during the 1st and 2nd test?

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 07 Apr 2009 00:02

Sujjan datta's article is DDM pendulum swung the other side. True to DDM's nature they sold a bead covered with 99% fluff. But that type of fluff is dangerous and I agree with Rohit here. The game of one upmanship is not correct. We don't know whether from start itself 3 trials were planned. We don't know whether only after first test failed, they went for subsequent tests. We don't know the testing objectives, starting from launch initiation process to end of trajectory. We have small nugget of info of the sizes/scales of target that Blk II can handle. IE did a hit job against DRDO they ate poop after success of AAD. Now imagine tomorrow if Army comes out with a "clarificashun" that they planned the 3 tests all along. It will counter the essential storyline of the article. We cannot rely on the DDM to witchunt IA if we don't trust the same DDM because it tarnishes DRDO. Unki information credible nahi hain.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Apr 2009 02:25

So they are peddling HyStrike/x51 type Viperola oil around in Delhi? interesting, they seem spooked enough by feeds of hyper-brahmos and might be systematically targeting its support base. Antagonistic news leaks are convenient.

This should not have been a zero sum game between user and developer. But regardless of managed news leaks, our jernails need to stop riding on coat tails of firang jernail's requirements and ideas (who seem to have thought deep and wrote what they want to wield in war). I mean, when can we see a host of major weapon systems that Indian jernails thought of and wants to wield? As Kanson rightly pointed out, when will we see "The wheel" as demanded by an Indian jernail?

Brahmos was a great option as a revenge weapon, in spanking the pakis and now that seems to be going the Arjun's random way. Still could not understand uber-jernail saying "We are not ready" after Mumbai. We are talking about serious money being spent over years on shiny objects that he demanded. Money that could have been spent elsewhere in civvy infrastructure to keep a lot of Indian people alive, if he feels we are not ever going to be fighting fit.

Hope the brass remembers this less appreciated fact: a lot of Indians die during peace, so our soldiers can fight in war

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 07 Apr 2009 03:34

hnair wrote:So they are peddling HyStrike/x51 type Viperola oil around in Delhi? interesting, they seem spooked enough by feeds of hyper-brahmos and might be systematically targeting its support base. Antagonistic news leaks are convenient.

This should not have been a zero sum game between user and developer. But regardless of managed news leaks, our jernails need to stop riding on coat tails of firang jernail's requirements and ideas (who seem to have thought deep and wrote what they want to wield in war). I mean, when can we see a host of major weapon systems that Indian jernails thought of and wants to wield? As Kanson rightly pointed out, when will we see "The wheel" as demanded by an Indian jernail?

Brahmos was a great option as a revenge weapon, in spanking the pakis and now that seems to be going the Arjun's random way. Still could not understand uber-jernail saying "We are not ready" after Mumbai. We are talking about serious money being spent over years on shiny objects that he demanded. Money that could have been spent elsewhere in civvy infrastructure to keep a lot of Indian people alive, if he feels we are not ever going to be fighting fit.

Hope the brass remembers this less appreciated fact: a lot of Indians die during peace, so our soldiers can fight in war

Fully agree.

And the last line is the punch line that need to be TOLD and RETOLD to Indian Army jernails.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Apr 2009 04:23

rohitvats wrote: Why all this nonsence? Who asked you not to post? Did you even read what I posted or did you simply fly of into a rage and wrote the above BS? I do not have condescending attitude against anyone; it is you seem to be insecure about God knows what? Get off your high horse and know all attitude. There are other posters who disagree with what I wrote and have been civil with their arguments withiout name calling. Please learn some etiquettes.

Rohitvats, I have been civil and have not resorted to name calling. It is you who is terming anything I write as nonsense. Who made you the judge of all that is right or wrong? I don't get that!

Please point out where I have resorted to doing so! It is you who seem to be sure that any opinion other than yours is wrong and needs to be shot down!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Apr 2009 04:30

Parijat Gaur wrote: So, who is the boss? DRDO?

The boss is the (wo)man who runs the country - the PM. Some PMs sat on the Pokhran tests and one PM chose to go ahead with it. That one decision has made the biggest difference to India's geopolitical position.

Defence expenses are funded by tax-payer money. So tax payers ought to have a say on how it is spent, don't you agree?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Apr 2009 04:45

Anyway, apologies to the rest for distracting the thread. This is my last post on the matter. It is disappointing to see adoption of Brahmos Block II into just 2 regiments. Perhaps something better is in the pipeline.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Apr 2009 09:58

Folks exercise some restraint. A whole page of useless posts was made in this highly technical thread. next time take it to newbie thread.
No thanks, ramana

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 07 Apr 2009 10:21

content deleted......

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 07 Apr 2009 10:34

Cut the crap about IA/IAF wanting foreign maal. Akash can at best replace the kvderat. It simply is not in the league of MR-SAM (70 km). I am sure IAF and army will order some more Akash batteries but they need not come at the cost of MR-SAMs or LR-SAm's.

Anyway who wants to buy the akash?

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 07 Apr 2009 10:50

Must be Malaysia they were interested in the system. That will be great news

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 07 Apr 2009 10:54

vavinash wrote:Cut the crap about IA/IAF wanting foreign maal. Akash can at best replace the kvderat. It simply is not in the league of MR-SAM (70 km). I am sure IAF and army will order some more Akash batteries but they need not come at the cost of MR-SAMs or LR-SAm's.

I am not here for argument buddy.

I know how generous are the desi babus in parliament and armed forces are.

Just wanted to pass the news on.......

if vodka is gud enough to spill over ,enjoy the party on board

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 07 Apr 2009 10:57

After all this discussion it is still not clear as to whether Naval LRSAM is same as IAF MRSAM or they are different? The diagram of Indian Express does not show any booster on MRSAM! It is difficult to believe that 276kg missile will have 'effective' range of 72km

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 07 Apr 2009 12:55

Malaysia are closet pakis. It would be foolish to sell them anything. Indonesia does buy some BEL stuff, they could order some akash batteries.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Apr 2009 15:59

Selling any thing in east asia runs the risk of the Chinese studying and getting to know more about the system, its frequencies etc.
A risk not worth taking for systems which are currently deployed. Unless DRDO makes important items tamper proof, and we export the Block I systems only when Block II systems are under induction.