Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 19 Sep 2010 16:05

What do you guys think about the lack of a radar network in the southern peninsula ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Sep 2010 16:47

it will need to be looked at ofcourse, plus fighter bases. places like karwar and goa will be within range of J-10s and F-16-52 flying from pakistan coast for sure.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Sep 2010 16:58

rohitvats wrote:Well, you can place those S-300 rumours to rest.

Actually no. The speculations have to go on. Cause there was an Army gent who wrote in an article that we purchased and deployed them. I will try to dig that out tomorrow or something.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2010 18:07

Why there is none shown covering Delhi ? We dont believe Delhi is vulnerable? Is not L.K. Advani recommended( is that the word?) placing Green Pine south of Delhi?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2010 18:13

Chacko ji, i could recollect T.S. (Hindu) reporting Shourya under production. Still not happened ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Sep 2010 19:54

The absense of any EW radars or SAM batteries in North/NE region is worrisom. Not that PRC will invade India but we will not be able to learn their advancement (for the lack of better word) patterns.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Sep 2010 20:44

What is a Green-pine doing in Blore?? ( Blog mentions the radar being at NE of Bengaluru)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Sep 2010 21:00

Kanson wrote:Why there is none shown covering Delhi ? We dont believe Delhi is vulnerable? Is not L.K. Advani recommended( is that the word?) placing Green Pine south of Delhi?

There is a THD-1955 site outside of Delhi - South West plus a huge Troposcatter station.He has not drawn the sweep arc of THD-1955 stations.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Sep 2010 21:04

RamaY wrote:The absense of any EW radars or SAM batteries in North/NE region is worrisom. Not that PRC will invade India but we will not be able to learn their advancement (for the lack of better word) patterns.

He only commented on what he saw. If one traces the sweep arc of THD-1955 sites in Central and NE, they do reveal a wide coverage. Yes, the same may be inadequate and leaves many a gap because smaller radars are not there, but the same imo will change in near future.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Sep 2010 21:41

Very interesting link, thanks to the original provider "Thomas Kolarek" and of course the author himself.

However, one thing stands out that pretty much every radar in the network is either being changed or modernized, and new SAM systems are coming up with their own radars, plus there is that digital networking going on.

Back of the envelope estimates show that IAF has ordered over 80 different radars - ground based (split between different categories) already in the past five years.

Current estimates suggest that the IAF has orders for another 30-40 radars in the pipeline, and this is not counting AWACs/airborne systems or what will come with SAM systems.

For instance, each SpyDer point defence system comes with its 60 Km search radar, whereas the LRSAM has both an acquisition radar, and a guidance radar.

Reference "The Barak MR-SAM for IAF will have an even longer range, with the capability to engage multiple targets up to 70 km. Each of the 18 firing units will have a command-and-control centre, an acquisition radar, a guidance radar and three launchers with eight missiles each," said a source.

Source: Indo-Israeli air defence project gets green light - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... z0zzb3yF3K

Even if the above is incorrect & each squadron receives 2 FU, and 1 AR and 1 GR, thats an additional 9 AR (Acquisition Radars), which are definitely equal or superior to the 36D6 radars. The radars may be AESA system based on MFSTAR considering IAI marketing a simpler Barak 8 system with a single radar(http://www.deagel.com/news/IAI-to-Devel ... 06156.aspx)

Reading the above article, plus doing a bit of digging shows the IAF still has many VHF band P-12/P-18 radars in service. Suitably upgraded,(http://milparade.udm.ru/32/028.htm), these should provide a good backup at wartime and capability against threats optimized against non VHF bands. Reports suggest even the advanced JSF in development currently is not optimized against the VHF band, and the same should hold true for Chinese PRC developments and the increasingly proliferating Cruise Missiles which receive RF suppression against commonly used AD bands, implying non VHF bands.

With some "jugaad" & investment, the IAF could have a good niche capability to employ as needed. Technology dismissed as obsolescent, when usefully employed can give a good account of itself. A "home-brew" upgrade of the P-18 was used to successfully shootdown the stealth F-117. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Sep 2010 10:42

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson wrote:Why there is none shown covering Delhi ? We dont believe Delhi is vulnerable? Is not L.K. Advani recommended( is that the word?) placing Green Pine south of Delhi?
There is a THD-1955 site outside of Delhi - South West plus a huge Troposcatter station.He has not drawn the sweep arc of THD-1955 stations.

Thanks. Not long back, there was an odd news (PTI?) about setting up of basic ABM units for protecting Delhi. Indication is that, the ones undergoing testing like PAD will be placed. Probably i guess, it refers to Hindon Air base. As usual, google is not helping to trace that.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Sep 2010 11:12

Kanson wrote:
kit wrote:Can the under development LR or MR SAM be modified as ASAT weapons to be fired from , say the Su 30 s ? The US had gone along this way some time back.The capability would be much required since the chinese have superior numbers of military sats in orbit.
ALMV (Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle) is the major part of the ASAT you are talking about. Rest are all boosters. So it is not modifying the LR/MR SAM but developing vehicle like ALMV.

The DRDO is developing a new Prithvi interceptor missile codenamed PDV. It will be a two-stage missile and both the stages will be powered by solid propellants. It will have an innovative system for controlling the vehicle at an altitude of more than 150 km.

Time to see, how our PDV comes along. ALMV or the homing warhead is reported to consists of as many as 64 rocket motors out of this 54 are divert motors. How innovative our PDV going to be? Whether our PDV will be simply be an high altitude ABM or it also acts as ASAT as the one described by Kalam of having capabilities to shoot anything to the altitude of 200 km needs to be seen. BTW SM-3's max altitude is around 160 km & max range is around 500 km.

Saraswat said its ideal to destroy a ballistic missile carrying nuclear or conventional warhead in its boost phase.

"It's easier to kill a missile in boost phase as it has not gained much speed and is easier to target. It cannot deploy any countermeasures and it is vulnerable at that time," Saraswat said.

"Suppose if the missile is being launched at Indian target from 2000 km. If I have to kill it there, I will have to travel that distance, which will require many minutes to be there. If you have a laser system travelling at a speed of light, it can kill that missile in its boost phase (just after launch) even before it has travelled a few 100 kilometers," Saraswat, who is Chief Controller R&D, said.

It is also to be seen, whether PDV could be used as boost phase interceptor as Saraswat seemed to have much enamored of boost phase interception. It again depends on the velocity, range & the altitude of the PDV missile and i guess this missile fulfills that role too.

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Sep 2010 12:08

"Suppose if the missile is being launched at Indian target from 2000 km. If I have to kill it there, I will have to travel that distance, which will require many minutes to be there. If you have a laser system traveling at a speed of light, it can kill that missile in its boost phase (just after launch) even before it has traveled a few 100 kilometers

Tu22 or Tu142's equipped with AAD class weapons can be on active patrol near the border areas during times of higher missile launch expectation.
This might increase missile range, response time and mobility and can act as gap fillers until the laser based systems become available.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 20 Sep 2010 15:46

sum wrote:What is a Green-pine doing in Blore?? ( Blog mentions the radar being at NE of Bengaluru)

To detect and counter Chinese SLBMs targetting the Peninsula perhaps. Lets not forget industrial/ economic density is at the highest in South India.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 20 Sep 2010 16:58

KiranM wrote:
sum wrote:What is a Green-pine doing in Blore?? ( Blog mentions the radar being at NE of Bengaluru)
To detect and counter Chinese SLBMs targetting the Peninsula perhaps. Lets not forget industrial/ economic density is at the highest in South India.

Also consider aeronautical development activities going on in the region. It can be for conducting tests also.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2010 22:05

An idea of massa's programs:

Missile for Peace by Henry Sokolski!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Sep 2010 22:14

US which developed such complex kill vehicle like ALMV which has 56 divert rocket motors says Arrow-3 kill vehicle is more advanced than what US got so far...

"The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs" Gen. O'Reilly told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee for strategic forces. "This has to do with the seekers that have greater flexibility and other aspects, such as propulsion systems- it will be an extremely capable system" he said.

What Makes the Israeli Technology Unique?

What are the new technologies that make the Israeli technologies so unique to get such high appraisals from the MDA director? Defense Update has tracked a system described by Dr. Joseph Hasson, chief missile designer at IAI MLM division, presented at a missile defense conference in 2008 and repeated this week in Israel. The presentation provided a hint about the potential paradigm shift for Exo-Atmospheric KV design, employing existing technologies, with simplicity and efficiencies yet unachievable with space vehicles. The new exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (KV) was claimed as a patent by Dr. Hasson and Dr. Galya Goldner from IAI MLM, both missile architects at IAI MLM division, which will also develop the Arrow 3.

The IAI team proposed a kill vehicle offering exceptionally large divert capability, meaning the kill vehicle will have exceptional capability to maneuver in space, close-in on a target with high probability of kill, at realistic (very high) closing speeds. Unlike common KVs utilizing space propulsion systems (such as liquid propellant or gas generators), the proposed KV will be propelled by an ordinary rocket motor, equipped with flexible nozzle (vector-thrust). Furthermore, this unique KV will also be fitted with a gimbaled seeker, obtaining hemispheric coverage for the seeker. Furthermore, its large divert capability and high agility are contributing to easing the requirements for detection and tracking systems, generally associated with remote-sensor assisted exoatmospheric kills.

Another presentation, by Dr. Idan Paiss, also from IAI MLM, discussed imaging systems in the visible, for ballistic missile interceptors. Dr. Paiss argued that a combined sensor utilizing visible and infrared elements would be suitable for ballistic missile intercept under all lighting conditions, furthermore, when provided with high density matrixes available today, such sensors could provide both target detection, discrimination and tracking as well as assisting line-of-sight measurement utilizing stars tracking.

So it is the high divert capabilities employing simple & reliable design using flex nozzle vector thrusting and the dual mode gimabled seeker are depicted as high points of this kill vehicle.

So what we are upto...with our PDV....

Saraswat after a PAD test remarked, "the new guidance system in the missile allowed it to tackle the maneuvers of enemy's incoming missile and could be used against the Russian Topol M class of missiles, which move in a zig-zag manner."

he he he...is he not really upping the stakes? What can we expect from PDV? Will they deliver truly a class missile ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2010 22:24

Where is he saying all those things? Please provide a link. thanks, ramana

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Sep 2010 22:30

http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-03-0 ... 2news.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2010 23:18

Hmm PAD is at best designed to deal with IRBM class missile , how does that fit into the claim that it can intercept a ICBM ?

More ever it is very flawed to say AAD is better and Patriot-3 outdated ,on paper there are many missile that out ranges PAC-3 even the old S-300PMU2 does that , but PAC-3 is more of combat proven missile has proven and improved through combat experience and in recent GW has performed quite well in a very complex environment in full auto mode not withstanding few friendly kill due to IFF issue.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Sep 2010 23:25

Austin, some of AAD features are quite as advanced as the PAC-3. you remember the time wasting maneuver in AAD first flight ? it took the BMD guys 3-4 tries (IIRC) to get it right. VKS might talk big but his achievements tend to be proportionate.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2010 23:35

Rahul M wrote:Austin, some of AAD features are quite as advanced as the PAC-3. you remember the time wasting maneuver in AAD first flight ? it took the BMD guys 3-4 tries (IIRC) to get it right. VKS might talk big but his achievements tend to be proportionate.

Rahul No body says that AAD is not advanced , the time wasting manouver or bleeding of energy is used to keep the test within the range , you can see that in some of thaad test.

But VKS goes over board and makes claims that PAC-3 is outdated and PAD can intercept ICBM thats when he makes political statement rather then sticking to technical. Didnt he retract his China statement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2010 23:39

Austin, He is making a technical statement. Please always evaluate the message at hand and then put past performance into the picture.
He is very credible for both points.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2010 23:44

Austin says:

Hmm PAD is at best designed to deal with IRBM class missile , how does that fit into the claim that it can intercept a ICBM ?

Read what the article says again. "The official said to tackle missiles with a striking range of over 6,000 km, hypersonic interceptor missiles will have to be developed for the phase 2 of the air defence programme."

He is not referring to the PAD.

The journalist mentions the Topol-M, and is clearly referring to trajectory maneuvers, not the missile itself. It doesnt take rocket science to figure out what he is saying. The gimballed directional warhead, allows the PAD to take care of missiles that have trajectory variations, even if the PAD itself cannot orient the entire KV fast enough. It is similar to how the Akash even with a RF proximity fuse and not a seeker, had tests show that with its existing warhead, it could knock out any aircraft within a large blast zone. In this case, the warhead itself can be oriented for maximal effect, to account for evasive maneuvers when the KV approaches, to maximize the kill probability. Otherwise, you end up with a "miss as big as a mile" and end up having to go for HTK, which too has significant issues in managing fast closing speeds & which part of the missile to hit.

More ever it is very flawed to say AAD is better and Patriot-3 outdated ,on paper there are many missile that out ranges PAC-3 even the old S-300PMU2 does that , but PAC-3 is more of combat proven missile has proven and improved through combat experience and in recent GW has performed quite well in a very complex environment in full auto mode not withstanding few friendly kill due to IFF issue.

By your logic the SA-6 is more proven than the Patriot as it has more combat experienced and has "matured". The basic issue is that the PAC-3 does not reach far enough for Indian requirements. Saraswat is perfectly right in pointing that out. The US has been trying to pitch many AD systems to India for a while, and some of them dont meet our needs.

Saraswat has the habit of talking loud , showing big dreams , using some American PPT to show how our ABM system will progress ahead , I guess it works if he needs more fund to promote his pet project.

I guess he the guy who will talk big , show big dreams and extract maximum fund from the GOI

Saraswat has a habit of "talking loud and showing big dreams" because he has a habit of delivering. This is the same man who was offered a blank check to quit the IGMP in the 80's & emigrate to a certain western nation, but stayed back to lead the Prithvi series program, finished it, and then Project AD, for which he was handpicked.

Would sure be great if you achieve a similar level of domain competence in his field and earn bragging rights before you mock him. A little bit of respect, goes a long way.

And the "American PPT" is a communication tool to show stakeholders what the progress is, your beloved Russians tend to use it every arms event very enthusiastically, mostly with the fine print missing ("fund us"). If he keeps quiet about achievements, folks will be amongst the first to say the ABM does nothing. But if he speaks his mind, out come come these wise comments. BTW, if you had seen one of those "American PPTs" which Saraswat & team had presented a year back publically, you'd know how advanced the Indian program is, and the challenges they have overcome in terms of propulsion, guidance & also the future plans they have laid out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2010 23:59

ramana wrote:Austin, He is making a technical statement. Please always evaluate the message at hand and then put past performance into the picture.
He is very credible for both points.

If the Russians had made any statements, our resident Russophiles would have fallen over themselves to acknowledge their wisdom. But Saraswat makes one, and out come the attacks.

One defense journo on the internet is currently recycling Saraswats "American PPT", releasing bits and pieces at a time. The saving grace is that particular person does not even have half the capability to even understand what that public presentation says, but both Janes & AWST have already picked up on it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 00:01

ramana wrote:Austin, He is making a technical statement. Please always evaluate the message at hand and then put past performance into the picture.
He is very credible for both points.

Ramana I personally have nothing against him but he tend to make interesting statements

KaranM I have read his full interview in the FORCE magazine which covers all future development and he has not made those kind of claims , I am not certain if the Zee News report has directly quoted him or added their own stuff.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2010 00:12

Austin, staying within test area is not the reason for incorporating the time wasting maneuver in ABMs, it has tactical utility. I think it's quite well known that the next product of our ABM stable would be the anti-ICBM missile, why would VKS make a statement that is obviously incorrect when he himself has provided the correct view previously ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 00:14

Rahul M wrote:Austin, some of AAD features are quite as advanced as the PAC-3. you remember the time wasting maneuver in AAD first flight ? it took the BMD guys 3-4 tries (IIRC) to get it right. VKS might talk big but his achievements tend to be proportionate.

Yes, several features. In fact the Indian ABM stands in its own class as a hybrid system designed for Indian needs and has similarities and differences vis a vis all the other ABM systems out there.

The PAC-3 still utilizes a PESA radar, which India deliberately rejected for the Program AD. AESAs have more upgrade capability, beam steering & ECCM, plus have more MTBF, critical for a strategic system which cannot afford to fail because a critical component, in the RF chain decided to burn out.

The Indian ABM has two radars, both long range, but one offering significantly high resolution for fine grain intercept. This is again a finesse even over the Israeli Arrow which just uses one L Band Green Pine for everything, end to end. Its also worth noting that the planned MEADS system to be developed by US & Europe, kept the PAC-3 missile but went for a similar delineated approach to radars and combat management.

The miniaturization of the PAC-3 (need to fit 4 to one pack) meant they dropped a proximity fuse and went for HTK (marketing says vice versa, but its both reasons). The Indian missiles carry a hefty warhead, now using a gimballed one. The Israelis chose a similar approach for their latest KV. They too are worried about how the Iranians are progressing designs and HTK alone will not do the trick.

There are many more points which come out when you see, even at an outside level, the publically described layout, the architecture of the system and what its designed to achieve.

The system has been from day one designed to be scalable. There was no need to go for high end systems and architecture unless the plan was for AD-1 and AD-2. Saraswat & team did a great job of benchmarking current threats and requirements without ignoring future ones.

Another interesting thing are advances in guidance & control systems. They have effectively revamped whatever was in the original missiles (including the Brahmos). The PAD/AAD etc carry the next generation of systems onboard. Then there is a plan for expanding the sensor roadmap and footprint. Again, there is an article posted somewhere which goes into detail around those points. This is not just a flash in the pan system but one which is considerably sophisticated and well thought (for instance redundancy in ABM command & control - in case the enemy does a volley to knock out the ABM C&C and then target the HV target). Small details like these are throughout if we look at them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 00:22

Austin wrote:Ramana I personally have nothing against him but he tend to make interesting statements

And that is the reason to be abusive? When was the last time you were so abusive to your beloved Russians who keep talking about how great their S-300, S-400, S-500 is, their PAKFA is, or how the Bulava issues will be resolved. Its one thing to be a subject matter expert, work in the field for decades on your own, and then have a critique as versus ridicule. But if you are an external observer then a little bit of humility goes a long way, whether it is you or I or anyone else.

KaranM I have read his full interview in the FORCE magazine which covers all future development and he has not made those kind of claims , I am not certain if the Zee News report has directly quoted him or added their own stuff.

Really, so Saraswat or anyone will reveal everything "all future development", in one interview to one magazine?

FYI in all these interviews, the guy goes in with a list of prepared questions and its upto Saraswat to reveal the details per what he can publically declare.

In other words, if the interviewer misses on some point, there is no guarantee Saraswat will pick up on those missing points and cover everything. Frontline ran a series on GOI labs a year back. They were full of "missing" information because the journalist did not even ask about them or did not get access to those details.

There is no one article that covers even 50% of the developments in Program or Project AD or whatever they call it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 00:23

Anyway guys I dont think anymore data is needed. Please let people carry their views.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 00:26

Rahul M wrote:Austin, staying within test area is not the reason for incorporating the time wasting maneuver in ABMs, it has tactical utility. I think it's quite well known that the next product of our ABM stable would be the anti-ICBM missile, why would VKS make a statement that is obviously incorrect when he himself has provided the correct view previously ?

During test they do it so that the test is done within Test Range ,I do not know what tactical utility that holds during launch/boost phase. Are you talking about the cork screw manouver while the AAD lifts and THAAD does that very elegantly probably because its all TVC.

Any ways this is as much of a claim world for us as much it is for American , Russian or Israel .

The only time a complex system like ABM was extensively combat tested integrated with other assets was when PAC-3 was used in GW2 , not to take away any thing from Patriot , it remains the most combat proven system , certainly not "outdated" else they would donate that to Iran

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 00:29

Karan M wrote:When was the last time you were so abusive to your beloved Russians who keep talking about how great their S-300, S-400, S-500 is, their PAKFA is, or how the Bulava issues will be resolved. Its one thing to be a subject matter expert, work in the field for decades on your own, and then have a critique as versus ridicule. But if you are an external observer then a little bit of humility goes a long way, whether it is you or I or anyone else.

Sure the Russian are equally brag and like other thing they do lot of BS no doubt , as I said its a claim world.

Every ABM designer would say my ABM will defeat any advanced BM as much as any BM developer would say I can defeat any ABM , its a world of claim and counterclaim.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 00:53

Austin wrote:Sure the Russian are equally brag and like other thing they do lot of BS no doubt , as I said its a claim world.

Yeah but when was the last time you abused them? In the other threads you were busy putting up defences over the Bulava, over this tank, that plane!

The only time a complex system like ABM was extensively combat tested integrated with other assets was when PAC-3 was used in GW2 , not to take away any thing from Patriot , it remains the most combat proven system , certainly not "outdated" else they would donate that to Iran

There are 2 ways to look at obsolescence. Functional, technology. Functional, as in the threat is no longer handled by the system. Technology as in the system uses tech, which is thoroughly surpassed causing maintenance or functional problems. In India's case, the PAC-3 is "outdated" or "insufficient" or whatever you want to call it, as far as functional requirements go. At best, it may be imported for the short term requirement of handling short range missiles but it is not capable enough to be the backbone. It may be the best for the US because their requirements are different. In our case, the AAD is specialized for the ABM mission and we went with the LRSAM project for the other role. The PAC system is still a compromise between aircraft & tactical missiles.

Coming to exports, if Iran was not so anti-America, they'd for heck export it to Iran. There is a $80 Billion deal in the works for Saudi Arabia and UAE has been proposed the THAAD. Arms manufacture is now the single most critical cross disciplinary field which the US has, which allows it to keep its R&D base in multiple disciplines strong. Mass manufacture of almost everything else has moved East. Iran btw, was the biggest importer of US arms at one time. They received aircraft, helicopters and what not.

Every ABM designer would say my ABM will defeat any advanced BM as much as any BM developer would say I can defeat any ABM , its a world of claim and counterclaim.

Again with the generalizations.

And how many designers and developers do you know of, who field an integrated agency to design & develop both ballistic missile systems AND their interceptors? Do you understand the advantages are gained by that.

There are a but of handful of agencies across the world who can claim this, such as Lock Mart, IAI and a couple of others.

As such, the designers and developers in these organizations have an edge over many others who suffer from lack of access to design data and skilled personnel who have to be brought into design teams. In the Soviet Union, it took the politburo to push for personnel transfers alone, across bureaucratic walls. They ended up making different models for everything and today are scrambling to field integrated complexes.

Saraswat began and spent most of his career making Ballistic Missiles as part of IGMP. He is the perfect person to figure out how to counter them as well. He can call upon all the agencies which are part of his own organization as well. What he & his team know about whats achievable and whats not is not available in any book or textbook. Its hard won experience. When he says something, kindly try to understand/ figure out what he is saying, instead of getting hung up on the fact that he does not meet your standards of humility or docility or that he is using "American PPTs". I for one, wish there were many more such "doers" in the Indian establishment who spoke their mind and kept the public informed of what is being done and why.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 21 Sep 2010 08:22

User trial of Prithvi II missile on Sept 24
Balasore, Sept 20:
http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnew ... leID=47776

Hectic preparation is underway for conduct of user trial of surface to surface Prithvi II missile from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-sea on September 24 next.
The nine-mt-long and one mt in width missile could carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads and has a range of 350 kms.
It was one of five missiles being developed under Integrated Missile Development Programme.
ITR sources said the missile would be tested for 320 km range.
Earlier on June 18 last, the missile was conducted for a range of 273 km.
According to Defence Research and Development Organisation(DRDO) sources, the tests would be part of the user trial, which was conducted by a special contingent raised by the Army from LC -III.
Prithvi-II is capable of carrying a payload of between 500 kg and one ton, including nuclear weapons. The nuclear-capable Prithvi-II missile has already been inducted in the armed forces and is handled by the Army units attached to the strategic force command's special group.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 08:49

Karan M wrote:Yeah but when was the last time you abused them? In the other threads you were busy putting up defences over the Bulava, over this tank, that plane!

Nonsense , if you read my post I mentioned that the failure is an industrial issue and the deep problem that has crept in. So stop BS.

There are 2 ways to look at obsolescence. Functional, technology. Functional, as in the threat is no longer handled by the system. Technology as in the system uses tech, which is thoroughly surpassed causing maintenance or functional problems. In India's case, the PAC-3 is "outdated" or "insufficient" or whatever you want to call it, as far as functional requirements go. At best, it may be imported for the short term requirement of handling short range missiles but it is not capable enough to be the backbone. It may be the best for the US because their requirements are different. In our case, the AAD is specialized for the ABM mission and we went with the LRSAM project for the other role. The PAC system is still a compromise between aircraft & tactical missiles.

What every way you look at PAC-3 either functional or technology it certainly not outdated but a very proven and advanced system.

Whether it meets Indian requirement or not is another matter , if it does not meet then whats the point in importing "outdated" system for short term ?

Iran btw, was the biggest importer of US arms at one time. They received aircraft, helicopters and what not.

That was just sarcasm

And how many designers and developers do you know of, who field an integrated agency to design & develop both ballistic missile systems AND their interceptors? Do you understand the advantages are gained by that.

There are a but of handful of agencies across the world who can claim this, such as Lock Mart, IAI and a couple of others.

And none of those handful agency have ever cared to test it against their own BM but a target that suits their requirement.

Obviously when their advanced BM is designed to penetrate ABM , either one will be proven wrong if they do so.

So it is just a claim to suit each ones requirement be it US , Russian or Indian . Each missile designer will always blow their own trumpet , but no one dares challenge the others in any real test.

When he says something, kindly try to understand/ figure out what he is saying, instead of getting hung up on the fact that he does not meet your standards of humility or docility or that he is using "American PPTs". I for one, wish there were many more such "doers" in the Indian establishment who spoke their mind and kept the public informed of what is being done and why.

There no no denying the fact that he uses those American looking PPT to claim his own technological leap , the rest is all a good PR exercise and VKS is any ways good at media.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 21 Sep 2010 09:19

User Trials of Prithvi-II Missiles to be Conducted on September 24th 2010

Hectic preparation is underway for conduct of user trial of surface to surface Prithvi II missile from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-sea on coming Friday - September 24.

The nine-mt-long and one mt in width missile could carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads and has a range of 350 kms. It was one of five missiles being developed under Integrated Missile Development Programme.

ITR sources said the missile would be tested for 320 km range.
Earlier on June 18 last, the missile was conducted for a range of 273 km.

According to Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) sources, the tests would be part of the user trial, which was conducted by a special contingent raised by the Army from LC -III.

Prithvi-II is capable of carrying a payload of between 500 kg and one ton, including nuclear weapons. The nuclear-capable Prithvi-II missile has already been inducted in the armed forces and is handled by the Army units attached to the strategic force command's special group.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4539

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 14:09

ITR sources said the missile would be tested for 320 km range.
Earlier on June 18 last, the missile was conducted for a range of 273 km.

Wow! Missile range is gradually increasing. If the max. range is 350 km what is the significance of testing @ 320 km from the previous 273 km range.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 14:11

Austin wrote:Nonsense , if you read my post I mentioned that the failure is an industrial issue and the deep problem that has crept in. So stop BS.

Thanks for proving the point.

So whenever the Russians screw up, even massively, like with the Bulava, with test failure after failure, with all sorts of claims coming out each time, you say "Industrial issue and the deep problem that has crept in - not a complete failure and mess from the word go.

And how do you know what the real Bulava problems are btw, apart from whatever the Russian PR puts out? There are many who doubt the Bulava has serious systemic faults in the design itself. Simply put, you are always ready to accept any of the Russian BS.

BTW I also asked when was the last time you mocked and abused any of the Russian or European experts, as you do with VKS and Pillai (last time, it was Pillai was a big mouth and talks big)!

More rationality and humility from your side, when referring to folks who actually do the stuff as compared to talk about it, irrespective of nationality, would go a long way.

What every way you look at PAC-3 either functional or technology it certainly not outdated but a very proven and advanced system.

Unfortunately, what ever way you look, the PAC-3 cannot meet our specific ABM needs across a wide range of threats and is outdated, functionally in that respect. Please address what VKS said about performance specifics & the points I raised about specific systems and subsystem. Just repeating one statement over and over again is worthless.

Whether it meets Indian requirement or not is another matter , if it does not meet then whats the point in importing "outdated" system for short term ?

The same reason India has imported other outdated systems throughout its history. Whether it be tanks, aircraft or even SAMs, we have taken many hand-me-downs convincing ourselves they are ok for the interim. We upgraded the MiG-21s which "met our requirement", ten years later we are still trying to solve Russian screw-ups.

That was just sarcasm

Well it failed then, because both the US & Russia whenever strategic interest required, have exported their grade A military items abroad. As far as Iran and now UAE are concerned, they even received items more sophisticated than US had at the time.

And none of those handful agency have ever cared to test it against their own BM but a target that suits their requirement.

How do you know what they have and have not tested anything against? Do you work in any of these agencies? Do you think they will come out and proudly declare the tests in detail so any opponent can happily develop countermeasures! Test details are sanitized, for good reason.

Obviously when their advanced BM is designed to penetrate ABM , either one will be proven wrong if they do so.

Again, speaking in generalizations, with a reasoning tailored to your own conclusion. There is no one ABM. There are multiple systems with pros and cons, each with limitations and strengths. In India's case, we have both the missile designers and missile intercept guys under one wing, drawing access to the same pool of technology and leadership. If you cant understand what that means, then you are ignoring the obvious.

So it is just a claim to suit each ones requirement be it US , Russian or Indian . Each missile designer will always blow their own trumpet , but no one dares challenge the others in any real test.

Yeah sure, only in this case, the missile designer and missile interceptor designers happen to be from the same group and organization. And if you knew anything of the Indian program, you'd know that they have been working together from day one, and a lot of the technology and systems in both programs is the same.

There no no denying the fact that he uses those American looking PPT to claim his own technological leap , the rest is all a good PR exercise and VKS is any ways good at media.

What are "American looking PPT", are they different from "Russian looking PPT" and "Chinese looking PPT". Since you are completely unaware, your beloved Russians hand out PPT sets for all their products to journalists and visitors. Here are some links from google.

Here, go on, tell us which of these PPTs is more American since there are Indian, Russian, American and even Chinese PPTs:

http://**************/2009/1 ... ailed.html
http://**************/2009/1 ... ailed.html

Go to IAI website, and you will see Israeli PPT using "American PDF".

PPT is a tool used to showcase what you do because it can incorporate both images and text, in an easy format and is widely used.

"The rest is all a good PR exercise"

So all the tests so far are PR exercises? They transported a radar weighing many tons, all the way to Orissa for PR exercises? All all the tests are staged for PR?

Seriously, your comments are more ridiculous by the minute. As far as the ABM program is concerned, what the PPTs will show will be similar to what NMDA or others will have, as they are the only other agency with a similar charter and wide ranging program. If that makes them "American PPT", there are no words left to be said.

And how is anyone "good at the media" - if just giving interviews make them "good at the media", then almost everyone, across the world is good at the media. Have you even been to any of the media conferences where he talks? He is in such a tearing hurry and always speaks his mind. In contrast, and you should see the media detachment that comes along with the US companies, with a dedicated marketing guy for each product and how smoothly they operate when tough questions are raised.

Seriously, you just use terms for the buzz of it. Its one thing to be a subject matter expert in the field, and even there one would need decades of work to get anywhere near a Saraswat or any chief designer, and then pick and choose media items which are either puzzling or there are gaps in the analysis.

But to sit on the internet, and then to abuse people who actually work in the field, using terms like "good PR, loud mouth" on the basis of dubious logic and speculation at best - is hubris.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 14:24

Ooopps...so much disagreement on one such statement! Maybe it should be taken as compliment as any achievements will be compared to the best system in the world or the first system of its class and we are never going to have a face off with Topol-M.

Austin wrote:And none of those handful agency have ever cared to test it against their own BM but a target that suits their requirement.

Obviously when their advanced BM is designed to penetrate ABM , either one will be proven wrong if they do so.

Not only that, there is no chance you use the your own BM on you so tests are 'rigged' to mimic the missile with the adversary. Conducting those tests will be realistic in nature as the chances of facing your own BM is negligible.

In another way, it is also true that Russia after creating a missile like Topol-M designed to penetrate US BMD network shows anxiety for the placement of interceptor missile in Europe. There is certain bit of hype everywhere, i guess.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 14:30

Unfortunately, what ever way you look, the PAC-3 cannot meet our specific ABM needs across a wide range of threats and is outdated, functionally in that respect. Please address what VKS said about performance specifics & the points I raised about specific systems and subsystem. Just repeating one statement over and over again is worthless.

Sir, adding to your point, we were not offered best of PAC system initially and even PAC-3 system is getting updated.