Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Nov 2009 22:25

^^^
smoke on a battleground 30 km away is not a problem at all. can anything visually ID a bit of smoke on the ground that distance away ? don't think so.
it's different for AAMs because of the clear background of the sky and for ATGMs since the distance involved are small.

I think you have raised a very important question - " Who is responsible for defending India against incoming cruise missles" and " what differentiates the AD responsibilities of IA and IAF ?

AD possibly is our biggest weakness in defence right now.

I think time has come to create a separate and independent AD Force - which is given the responsibility of defending India against all aerial threats. Elements of this force could then serve with IA, IAF, and IN units/locations as per requirements.
{most certainly not ! creating a specialised force will lead to unnecessary duplication of resources and serious lack of coordination, not to mention sub-optimal use of existing resources.}

This area needs a lot of importance and funding - if it stays within each service, it may not get enough of both.

even the russians have moved away from this kind of thinking. in a country like India, much of the AD net depends on the fighters. would you slice away a load of multi-role fighters from their ground attack roles to this AD force ?

ideally, the army would have only theater AD roles for its moving forces with the IAF providing top cover and situational awareness with its fighters and AEW&C aircrafts.
and the IAF would have overall responsibility of defending the airspace from all kinds of missiles and aircraft. it does look like this how the future is going to look.

The army is acquiring this to cover its battle groups, the airforce to cover major air bases and important installations. Is it possible to have a line of SAM's that can cover the airspace on the sensitive part of the borders and provide an additional layer (apart from a layer around major cities) to protect against a salvo?

is the the bolded part correct ? the air force's AD net would cover all ingress routes into India, not around a few installations -- that job is left to the SR QRMs like spyder. of course, it makes no sense to deploy ABM systems on the border unless the installation it is protecting is at the border.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 15 Nov 2009 23:44

The flight ceiling of Akash is given via many sources , however I cannopt find any concrete source for the minimum engagement altitude of the Akash. Since one of it's percieved task would be to track and destroy incoming cruise missiles, which are terain hugging by definition. Would the Akash be able to handle targts homing in at below 1Km (or even lesser).

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Nov 2009 00:08

Interception at tree top altitude is what is suggested.

1 Km is huge height it is 1000m ~ 3000ft.
The tree top analogy should make it intercept at ~100ft above ground or so.

Rahul M wrote:
the airforce to cover major air bases and important installations.
is the the bolded part correct ?

Saar,
The pattern of deployment of SAM assets that I see seems to suggest that the AF deploys them within the premises of IAF bases and around some vital installations around the country.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 16 Nov 2009 01:51

What happened to AGNI test...!!!

Any news Gurus...!!!

John · Post by **John** » 16 Nov 2009 04:53

Nihat wrote:The flight ceiling of Akash is given via many sources , however I cannopt find any concrete source for the minimum engagement altitude of the Akash. Since one of it's percieved task would be to track and destroy incoming cruise missiles, which are terain hugging by definition. Would the Akash be able to handle targts homing in at below 1Km (or even lesser).

It should be able to intercept low flying targets ultimately it will come down to Rajendra radar; its ability to detect low flying target coupled with the radar horizon.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2009 05:30

Gagan wrote:Saar,
The pattern of deployment of SAM assets that I see seems to suggest that the AF deploys them within the premises of IAF bases and around some vital installations around the country.

the pechora installations eh ? per my understanding, the radar net extends into enemy territory and the SAMs are make up the second line of defence along vital ingress routes, since we never had enough to spread throughout the borders. since the longer ranged ones are available now probably with an increase in holding qty too, that situation will change. even then, I don't think semi mobile SAM systems will show up that well on GE !

jai · Post by **jai** » 16 Nov 2009 15:34

I think you have raised a very important question - " Who is responsible for defending India against incoming cruise missles" and " what differentiates the AD responsibilities of IA and IAF ?

AD possibly is our biggest weakness in defence right now.

I think time has come to create a separate and independent AD Force - which is given the responsibility of defending India against all aerial threats. Elements of this force could then serve with IA, IAF, and IN units/locations as per requirements.
{most certainly not ! creating a specialised force will lead to unnecessary duplication of resources and serious lack of coordination, not to mention sub-optimal use of existing resources.}

Hi Rahul - To clarify the context under which I have made the suggestion is that future combats are fully expected to be "missile intensive" - given the pace with which both our friendly neighbours have been acquiring missiles of all kinds and ranges - at least non nuclear types of which will surely be fielded against us in a war. The question is - are the current AD assets and deployement framework of these with IA and IAF sufficient for a credible defence ? This is what I am expressing my doubts on. The current information available also does not clearly indicate which service would be responsible for missile defence of civil / nuclear/ research / key infrastructure nodes/installations. The current aquisition numbers/schedules/equipment also does not provide any clear answers or confidence.

A common specialist force may be able to raise the large resources and equipment numbers needed, and may act as the common coordination bridge - leveraging resources better.

even the russians have moved away from this kind of thinking. in a country like India, much of the AD net depends on the fighters. would you slice away a load of multi-role fighters from their ground attack roles to this AD force ?

How effective would a fighter based AD net be against incoming missles ? I think we need both the fighter numbers and a strong ground based AD network. Ideally ground based AD and fighters should not be at the cost of one another - but if we had a very strong AD capability, we would perhaps not need to invest in such large numbers of fighters for Air defence. Also, guess ground based AD would be more cost effective, automated - hence should be able to provide immediate response.

In our scenario - with so many TSP airfields within 150 KM of our border, I am wondering if well placed long range AD should also be able to pressurize PAF by launching attacks on TSP planes within their own airspace ?? Gurus can comment/advise..

ideally, the army would have only theater AD roles for its moving forces with the IAF providing top cover and situational awareness with its fighters and AEW&C aircrafts.
and the IAF would have overall responsibility of defending the airspace from all kinds of missiles and aircraft. it does look like this how the future is going to look.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2009 17:59

Hi Rahul - To clarify the context under which I have made the suggestion is that future combats are fully expected to be "missile intensive" - given the pace with which both our friendly neighbours have been acquiring missiles of all kinds and ranges - at least non nuclear types of which will surely be fielded against us in a war.

however missile intensive it may be, creating an AD only force will be wasteful use of resources for a country that doesn't have enough in the first place.

How effective would a fighter based AD net be against incoming missles ? I think we need both the fighter numbers and a strong ground based AD network.

against BM's not at all.
against CM's quite a lot. targeting CMs was in fact one of the design requirements of the flankers.

Ideally ground based AD and fighters should not be at the cost of one another - but if we had a very strong AD capability, we would perhaps not need to invest in such large numbers of fighters for Air defence. Also, guess ground based AD would be more cost effective, automated - hence should be able to provide immediate response.

no sir, it's not considered in that fashion. choosing an optimum mix of SAMs and fighters is as much a matter of doctrine as anything. there is no 'the' best way to do it. AD is no where near as cost effective since by the very definition you need more systems to cover an area while fighters can be re-deployed and cover much larger areas at much shorter notice.
of course, most fighters can also do some mud-moving when they are not fighting enemies in the air !

now, consider what you are saying, in practice this can mean
a) separate AD force for BMs only, IAF still handles other kinds of aerial threats
problem : you need to duplicate the complete sensor system for both forces. HUGE cost for a credible system. coordination problem in case of massed attacks.
OR
b) split IAF into an AD force and a ground attack force. the problem I noted earlier happens, you need fighters for AD and in a specialised AD force they will have no ground attack role == waste of resources.

what you are saying might have made sense in an era when each piece of machine had a restricted role and hence could be formed into a force with an one-dimensional role.
have a look : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Defence_Forces
why did they merge it with the RuAF after 50 years of experience ? earmarking and creating neat little forces for each neat job is the least efficient way to accomplish a job IMHO.

it's like our intel agencies, we have an agency for every conceivable threat, yet our intel gathering is in a mess, primarily because there is no coordination and duplication of effort and resources.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 16 Nov 2009 20:37

Well,
In the future A KS-172 type missile with an Imaging infrared seeker could be used for BPI- i.e somewhat similar to NCADE.

However that is the future and as of now fighters are not much help against incoming BMs.

How effective would a fighter based AD net be against incoming missles ? I think we need both the fighter numbers and a strong ground based AD network.

against BM's not at all.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2009 22:02

that's an interesting idea. only problem is the aircraft will have to be on station and the missile will need to be cued by ground based sensors as the aircraft's on-board sensors will not be powerful or accurate enough to give precise readings.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2009 22:32

I am more of the thought that an AWACS that can do the FCR as well, say Astra or even beyond BVR like KS172 for air defence.. the awacs cum fighter role should cater to atleast about 20 F16s or Su30s approaching us at BVR.

Akash role may not be for anti-BVR a/cs!

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 16 Nov 2009 22:32

that's an interesting idea. only problem is the aircraft will have to be on station and the missile will need to be cued by ground based sensors as the aircraft's on-board sensors will not be powerful or accurate enough to give precise readings.

Network centricity

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 16 Nov 2009 22:44

This kind of a capability will also come in handy for ASAT , engaging stealth aircraft as well as cruise missile defence.

It may also confer some defensive capability to lumbering transport platforms.

Further out it could provide a baseline capability for countering hypersonic aircraft.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2009 23:47

^^expensive options though.. 'cause a stealthy cruise missile if employed for already welknown targets, it 'd be much cheaper solution.

but, the thought is definitely force multiplier!

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 17 Nov 2009 00:34

D Roy wrote:
that's an interesting idea. only problem is the aircraft will have to be on station and the missile will need to be cued by ground based sensors as the aircraft's on-board sensors will not be powerful or accurate enough to give precise readings.

Network centricity

We can even relax the restriction of an aircraft being on station, if we can dream a bit more (technology willing

). Imagine a Harop like drone with a second idle booster like the one in an A2A missile. A few dozen of these loitering air-defence munitions could be, well loitering in our airspace. When an intrusion is detected, these munitions can be commanded by AWACS/UAV/ground-radar to attack, at which point they go from the loiter-mode to the attack-mode & the booster kicks in.

Its "On Demand" air-defence, like On-Demand software or hardware.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 17 Nov 2009 00:37

Hi...Anybody who has any doubt about Akash Missile system.....check out this interview of Dr. Prahlada.

http://www.drdo.org/dpi/prahlada_interview.html

Particularily useful for newbies....working of Akash system has been explained in simplest terms possible.

Thanks

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Nov 2009 02:54

sunny y wrote:Hi...Anybody who has any doubt about Akash Missile system.....check out this interview of Dr. Prahlada.

http://www.drdo.org/dpi/prahlada_interview.html

Particularily useful for newbies....working of Akash system has been explained in simplest terms possible.

Thanks

Good find but this is at a pretty high level with not many new details. I wish they had asked about the Akash Mk.II version. What areas are they working to improve on for the next iteration?

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 17 Nov 2009 13:19

^^^ SRai
Hi....well, yes you are right about the lack of new details.

I actually liked some questions like:

Q. How does it operate in a battlefield condition?
Q. How does it work if deployed, say around Delhi?
Q. What is the kill probability?
Q. DRDO projects have always been plagued by delays. This also has been.

The reason why I said it was good for newbies because sometimes they know what Battery, FCR means but they are unable to understand it in operational scenerio. In that case Dr. Prahlada's answers can remove most of their doubts.

Besides that I really liked the first line : Making ballistic missiles is no longer rocket science. "You decide that you will launch a missile on a Sunday after breakfast, and you do it," said Dr Prahlada, chief controller of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

As far as Akash Mk2 is concerned I think the only work that they can do is developing advanced ECCM, making it more network centric, using seeker because as far as range is concerned I don't think they will increase it because they are already working with Israel for MR-SAM so there is no point in running a parallel programme.

Thanks

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Nov 2009 03:38

^^^

Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller R&D (SI) and DS Interview (The Week Feb. 17, 2008)
DRDO Akash Medium Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System

Based on this interview and other public info bits, we can make certain assumptions:

* 2 missiles are assigned per target (one as a backup or second shot) even if the second one is not launched against it. So it is odd that only 3 missiles are on the ASPL/AAFL launcher. Ideally, this should be at least 4 missiles given how the system operates.

* 5 second launch between missiles in ripple fire mode. This would also mean the ASPL/AAFL launcher is pointing at that direction. If launching at targets in different directions, then it would be longer than 5 seconds (as the launcher has to slew and elevate to point to the target). I read somewhere that it takes 15 seconds from detection to launch. But should be faster subsequent launches as the missiles will already be prepped (powered up).

* The reason for limiting to 4 targets at a time (multi-target capability) is due to the nature of the launcher (360 degrees slewable and 8 to 75 degrees arc in elevation). Unlike a VLS system, the Akash launcher has to slew and elevate to point to the target before launch and this is partly also because the Akash missile is limited to 15g loads maneuverability. So this necessitates a point and shoot. For a VLS system missile, it would require a higher g loads to maneuver the missile in the right direction after its vertical launch. Since there are 4 launchers per battery, it means only 4 targets can be handled at one time using the slew and elevate launcher. Combined with 2 missiles per target capability, up to eight missiles can be fired at these 4 targets simultaneously (2 missiles per launcher at one target with 5 seconds gap).

According to Akash SAM (http://www.akashsam.com/about.htm#):

Its integral Ram Rocket propulsion provides all the way thrusting to a range of 25-30 km with a velocity of 600-700m/s from 1.5 km onwards.

* This means the sustained speed for 30 km is actually 700 m/s = 2.111865 Mach. However, the solid propulsion booster accelerates the missile from 0 to ~ Mach 1.5 before the ramjet engine takes over, which means this initial velocity needs to be added to the ramjet speed. I assume this is why the peak velocity of ~2.8 Mach comes up.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 18 Nov 2009 05:30

Check out this YouTube video about Akash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpHtSQmfxM

At about 3:04 minutes, you can see the Ramjet kicking in (or at least that's what I think the sudden spurt is the result of)

John · Post by **John** » 18 Nov 2009 06:10

Speaking of Harop isn't Akash vulnerable to HARM, if Rajendra radar is knocked as is the entire system since its command guided. The Russians mounted FCR for the SA-11 on the firing platform itself and also 9m317 missile can be fired prior and requires guidance only during terminal phase which fixed some of SA-6 vulnerabilities.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 Nov 2009 07:36

^ Aakash is the first indigenous SAM to enter service and serial production , decision to opt for command guidance is hence obvious , designing and production of on board miniature RF seekers for SAMs/AAMs is next logical step .On a positive note given the merits of the command guided platforms a battery of Aakash alongside Spyder(LLQRM) and MR-SAM constitute a nice mix of ADS to address all types of hostile airborne platforms.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 18 Nov 2009 07:59

negi wrote:^ Aakash is the first indigenous SAM to enter service and serial production , decision to opt for command guidance is hence obvious , designing and production of on board miniature RF seekers for SAMs/AAMs is next logical step .On a positive note given the merits of the command guided platforms a battery of Aakash alongside Spyder(LLQRM) and MR-SAM constitute a nice mix of ADS to address all types of hostile airborne platforms.

What will be the interplay tween Akash and the Israeli system? Please xplain the differences.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 18 Nov 2009 10:00

On Times Now just now:
"India eyes Patriot missile system, IA asks the Americans for a briefing."

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2009 10:24

yawn . they have been peddling the pac3 for a while now.

the SAMs derived from AAMs are capable of more G (40G) because AAMs have
that feature - derby, mica, python....however none are as large as the akash.
the size of the airframe may make it impossible to go for such a high limit.
I dont think VL SAM launch needs a 40G limit. missiles like Sthil and all the
missiles of S300-400 pantheon are there in VL mode.

while a VL akash would be nice to have and Rajendra as a rotating tombstone
type s300 radar, for now its quite adequate and more numbers should be pursued strongly rather than salivating after phoren maal.

having 4 radars to cover 360' adds some redundancy to the tactical situation
because a single ARM hit will not blow you off the scene. any surviving radars
can turn to face the greatest threats.

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Nov 2009 12:08

any body know the range of PAD and AAD

their Flight Ceiling are:

PAD >80KM
AAD 15-30KM

Thanks in advance:

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Nov 2009 12:38

Hari Seldon wrote:On Times Now just now:
"India eyes Patriot missile system, IA asks the Americans for a briefing."

A major issue with all imported electronic equipment, be it from the US, Russia, Israel or France, is the possibility of hardware/software "kill switches" being built in.

It was reportedly such a kill switch that recently allowed Israel to overcome Syrian air defense and bomb the suspected nuclear site.

What is India doing in this regard?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2009 12:42

Singha wrote: having 4 radars to cover 360' adds some redundancy to the tactical situation
because a single ARM hit will not blow you off the scene. any surviving radars
can turn to face the greatest threats.

very likely that the AESA radars of the ABM project would see their paths into future akash upgrades.

also, http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=155

Not to mention that with the 3D Car available & the group C3I, the Akash FCR can be activated at the launch range, minimizing reaction time & countermeasures. The combination of radars, the multifunction capabilities built into the Raj, and the C3I allow for several options not available with legacy systems.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Nov 2009 17:50

It's good that IAF and IA have not pushed DRDO for the best product , even if Akash has a few drawbacks such as non-AESA , not revolving radar and absence of Seeker , the armed forces do realize the merit behind inducting an indigenous missile and the ease of convenience when it comes to production and upgrades.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2009 19:00

Singha ji's point in my uderstanding meant more of the modular redundancy.. rather increased scalability in terms of AESA. Of course from a "blow up" scenario it would be best its distributed at enough distance so that one blows up, the other survives for fail-ops or active-active configuration that enhances more scan-while-track features.

For AESA based systems, we should also think of LPI and other aspects to defeat SEAD ops.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 18 Nov 2009 19:06

Nihat wrote:It's good that IAF and IA have not pushed DRDO for the best product , even if Akash has a few drawbacks such as non-AESA , not revolving radar and absence of Seeker , the armed forces do realize the merit behind inducting an indigenous missile and the ease of convenience when it comes to production and upgrades.

non AESA is not drawback,akaash range is just 30km and for that both rajendra radar and 3D CAR radars have more than enough range

and rajendra radar is a PESA radar this means RF signals are electronically steered so even without 360 degree rotation radar can still scan +/- 90 degrees,but again radar can rotate 360 degree

again not having seeker is not a drawback either because guidance system of akaash doesn't require seeker

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 18 Nov 2009 19:08

SaiK wrote:For AESA based systems, we should also think of LPI and other aspects to defeat SEAD ops.

even PESA radar have LPI,current russian PESA radars for SAM systems have upto 50 varying frequency patterns

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 18 Nov 2009 20:31

Nihat wrote:It's good that IAF and IA have not pushed DRDO for the best product , even if Akash has a few drawbacks such as non-AESA , not revolving radar and absence of Seeker , the armed forces do realize the merit behind inducting an indigenous missile and the ease of convenience when it comes to production and upgrades.

What do you mean by "Non revolving Radar" ? The Radar can be slewed and the beam steers +-45 degrees to give 90 degree coverage.

If you mean that it cannot detect targets in a 360 degree range, then you have to understand the deployment scenario. The 3D CAR has 360 degree coverage, acquires the target and provides a 200KM early warning. The Rajendra the slews to the direction the threats are arriving from and starts search to acquire the target. Then starts tracking 64 and attacks 4. This lack of mechanical revolving is actually a good thing, reduces wear and tear and lightens the Radar considerably.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2009 21:31

Baldev wrote:
SaiK wrote:For AESA based systems, we should also think of LPI and other aspects to defeat SEAD ops.
even PESA radar have LPI,current russian PESA radars for SAM systems have upto 50 varying frequency patterns

yeah.. the "other aspects" include jamming the anti-radiation missiles.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 18 Nov 2009 22:45

How difficult it is to port the command guidence modules from akash to trishul missile and then to integrate it with Raj? IFAIK Barak is also command guided, so command guided shorad is possible, deployed and proven. The benefit will be reduction of multitude of system specific sensors and having the the same proven(through akash) and cheap(no expensive active missile) AD system cover both the short and medium end.

Once the indegenous nag iir seeker is fully mastered, such a seeker can be added to both akash and trishul to improve the kill probablity. Due to short range of such seeker, they can only be useful at the end game so raj will still be required to guide both missiles to the approx vicinity till this seeker take over. A rader guided heat seeker will be far more difficult to evade.
This will also free up raj to handle more targets because the end game responsibility is no longer with it.

Can the gurus enlighten?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 00:11

wouldn't a quick reaction low range low level fire to forget to kill needs a different set of guidance and controls as against something really that can take a breath or two to kill?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 00:16

Barak is command guided.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Nov 2009 00:43

For short and low level engagement ranges requiring quick reaction and low utlisation of the FCR it makes sense to utilize CLOS guidance mode as there is no need for LOAL , also this helps to reduce the size and cost of the missile round itself (no onboard seeker and guidance module required). A powerful ground/ship based Radar has a better chance of discriminating a target from the background clutter.

RF/IIR seekers on board a missile make sense over longer engagement ranges or when fire and forget feature is needed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 00:45

..not the NG!

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 00:53

NG is not shorad, trishul was/is and hence no comparison with NG