Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Oct 2010 14:29

neerajb wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Rohit / Kanson,

How many target illuminators does the Akash battry has.

Or does the Rajendra doubles as a target illumminator. If Rajendra is the target illuminator then how many targets it can engage simultaneously. Cause IIRC it can track 64 simultaneously, but am not clear how many it can engage simultaneously.

Kanson wrote:In a battery level/Autonomous mode, both BSR (Battery Survelliance Radar) and Rajendra Radar provide track information to the backend data processing unit. But the fire control & verification jobs are provided by Rajendra *Radar*. As per AkashSAM site, 40 simultaneous tracks from BSR and 20 tracks from Rajendra. So combine together Rajendra *System* can track 60 or so target tracks at Battery level.
It can track 60 targets but can engage 4 of them with 12 missiles.

During Multisensor Tracking a 2-D battery surveillance radar (BSR) with 360 degree coverage and a larger detection range provides track data to the multifunction, slewable, 3-D phased array radar. This is useful when a single battery of the Rajendra is detached from the group to fight alone, and early warning from the 3-D CAR is not available.

Good. The tracks that was maintained by the BSR gets an update from BLR for the missing information like height when the target is within the range of BLR. The whole picture is maintained in the BCC. Which radar does what among the targets is decided at the BCC. As my knowledge goes it is 40+20. Target with utmost priority will be taken by BLR for engagement.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Oct 2010 14:38

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson wrote:
I never said anywhere, the second Akash missile will be launched only after the failure of the first missile in destroying the target.

The 24 missiles you mention is to cover large Area depending upon the deployment scenario.

SOP ? who says so ?
The post was in context of the kill probability per missile. Even if the missile has very high kill probability - the fire unit will fire two missiles. For the reason I mentioned above - the reaction time for 2nd fire is very low.

Each IAF base (most actually) have one Squadron of Pechora Missiles - IIRC, with three flights per Squadron. So, from IAF's perspective - the defended area is the base.

As for SOP - from the horse's mouth, literally.

What is the first shot kill probability of Pechora? If not wrong, it is around 50%. So it is natural to set two missiles per target to increase the kill probability to around 80% or with three missiles per target it is around 90%. Why would you set two missile for every target if the missile has the first shot kill probability around 90% (88% for Akash)? So, in case of Akash, it is left to the commander depending on the condition and the target in question or based upon his temperament, he may choose to assign more missiles if needed. However option of more missiles per target is retained but that doesn't mean a standard procedure of setting two missiles per target always. I hope i made this clear.

Modern missiles like Aster-15(30km range, similar to Akash range and similar reaction time or even less) sports ~90% kill probability. Is there anywhere stated or procedure followed for the Aster-15 to set the missile in pairs for a single target, by default?

You know, the two batteries can be 60 km apart or more. It gives varies options. To answer the question which started this discussion, all 24 missiles available in a Sqd are meant to protect the base from various angle and all may not availble at given point of time. One battery can be located 30km forward to the base along the threat axis to neutralize the threat well beyond 50 km to the base while rear unit might be placed closer to the base.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Oct 2010 20:01

kanson wrote:Good. The tracks that was maintained by the BSR gets an update from BLR for the missing information like height when the target is within the range of BLR. The whole picture is maintained in the BCC. Which radar does what among the targets is decided at the BCC. As my knowledge goes it is 40+20. Target with utmost priority will be taken by BLR for engagement.

The last statement "as my knowledge goes" is to be corrected. It is not "40+20", it is 100 & 64 (that poster has a typo) & one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. In other words, there could be 100 aircraft being tracked by the BSR which are not the 64 detected by the BLR. It is the job of the BCC to prioritize which of these targets gets engaged. This can be done automatically or by the operator choosing manually.

First, a word about the BSR. The BSR was a cheap(er) sensor chosen so that the Akash battery could operate autonomously. Being a phased array radar, the Rajendra can attack all 4 targets within its scan angle. But since Akash is command guided (cheap & effective against jamming), radar will be slewed in a particular direction. Whereas, BSR will continue to be operated over the other portions of space the Rajendra is now, not looking at, once it starts its engagement cycle. So its not necessary that the Rajendra necessarily provide the "missing information" like height, in all the cases. What the BSR is for, is Early Warning. Its an EW radar to give the Rajendra sufficient advance time to slew its radar to the highest threat zone and engage.

With a +/- 45 degree azimuth coverage and the ability to guide missiles to anywhere within that zone, that zone is quite large, and sufficient, but the BSR provides backup.

Now, the BSR is not likely to be acquired. The Indian Army has a new 3D CAR variant, with slightly reduced range over the IAF 3D CAR variant, but greater than the BSR. In contrast to the BSR, the 3D CAR is made in India, whereas BSR was a tracked 2D radar modified with Indian electronics, bought to support the Akash autonomous capability since original Rajendra did not slew over the full 360 degrees. Now the Rajendra can do this, and 3D CAR Army Variant is also available and has already been ordered. Most importantly, India has money to order full 3D radars and not just 2D sensors.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Oct 2010 20:03

Kanson wrote: You know, the two batteries can be 60 km apart or more. It gives varies options. To answer the question which started this discussion, all 24 missiles available in a Sqd are meant to protect the base from various angle and all may not availble at given point of time. One battery can be located 30km forward to the base along the threat axis to neutralize the threat well beyond 50 km to the base while rear unit might be placed closer to the base.

Correct, another thing which makes Akash much more effective than the Pechora, is that its mobile. It can be literally anywhere around the base at any axis. Earlier, the Pechora was limited to a handful of pre-prepared positions. This ability makes the Akash much more survivable. It can acquire, engage, and reposition.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 Oct 2010 09:21

DRDO Readying System On Chip For Avionics
Aviation Week

Representation of SoC : RCI

DRDO Readying System On Chip For Avionics
Oct 15, 2010
By Anantha Krishnan M.
Hyderabad

India is set to launch a system on chip (SoC) for avionics applications. It is a single chip solution for the existing printed circuit board-based onboard computer.

A select group of scientists are currently engaged in the design and development of the SoC at the Real-Time Embedded Computer Directorate attached to Research Center Imarat under the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). The chip will be ready by May 2011.

“The SoC is also going to be an Integral Part of a Futuristic Low-Cost Navigator System and Homing Guidance Seekers, besides providing Interface with other Avionics SubSystems,” a DRDO source says.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 Oct 2010 09:34

India Nears Fielding Of New SAM Systems
Aviation Week

India Nears Fielding Of New SAM Systems
Oct 15, 2010
By Asia-Pacific Staff
New Delhi

The Indian air force is gearing up to field a raft of new air defense equipment and address long-standing concerns about the existing inventory.

New Delhi has long worried about gaps; and in areas where it has fielded air defense systems, the equipment is often out of date. Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Naik, the Indian air force (IAF) leader, says half of the equipment at his command faces obsolescence, with that label applying to the majority of air defense weapons.

That situation is now being remedied. By next March, the IAF will begin receiving the first of 18 Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)-Rafael Spyder quick-reaction medium-range missile systems. The offshore deal became necessary in 2006 because of development problems and delays in the indigenous Akash surface-to-air missile (SAM) program.

However, Akash has since turned the corner, and the IAF decided to order six more Akash batteries worth $925 million—each with 125 missiles—in addition to the two systems already on order. The service will receive its first two Akash batteries in February, and is likely to deploy them in India’s Northeast.

The IAF also anticipates joint development work kicking off in earnest on the 15-km. Range (9.3-mi.) Indo-French Maitri short-range SAM (SR-SAM), which is aimed at filling the void created when the Indian government decided to wind up the Trishul Point-Defense Weapon Program in 2006 and effectively de-link it from IAF and Indian navy requirements. A workshare agreement between the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and European missile maker MBDA has been concluded. IAF sources suggest a formal accord sanctioning the program is likely soon, possibly when French President Nicolas Sarkozy visits New Delhi later this year.

An MBDA official says the SR-SAM would finish development work and the first phase of testing within three years of program go-ahead. While no official timelines have been revealed, the IAF expects the system to be available for deployment by late 2013.

Even higher on the IAF’s priority list is the 70-km.-range MR-SAM that the DRDO is developing with IAI. The IAF has revealed plans to raise at least two regiments that will use the MR-SAM, each with 40 launchers and support equipment.

In India, the MR-SAM will progressively replace the IAF’s antiquated Soviet-vintage SA-3 Pechora and SA-8 OSA-AK SAM systems.

A proposed foreign-assisted upgrade of the Pechora fleet was shelved two years ago, with the IAF deciding it was more economical to pursue a limited ground-equipment modification by Bharat Electronics Ltd.

The Pechora, OSA-AK and 9K38 Igla man-portable SAM systems are Effectively Obsolete, and the IAF admits it has had to Cannibalize Equipment to keep a minimum number operationally effective.

The raft of modernization activities should remedy a situation that, in June 2006, was strongly criticized by the Indian parliamentary committee on defense, which accused the defense ministry of taking a “Lackadaisical Approach” to existing needs and being responsible for “Derailed Modernization and Critical Voids.” Shortly after the Committee’s Stinging Report was released, the government began Prioritizing Air Defense Purchases and Development Programs.

But these activities do not address all of the air force’s concerns; Radar Coverage is Another Worry. The IAF currently has Fast-Track Tenders out for
Long-Range Surveillance Radars,
High-Powered Radars,
Three-Dimensional C/D Band Air Surveillance Radars,
Low-Level Transportable Radars
and Radars for Mountain Surveillance
in India’s Northern and Eastern Sectors.

Naik notes that “10 years ago we had very little money for modernization, which led to major delays. The equipment we are contracting now will come to fruition by 2014-15. So . . . over the next three years, areas of concern will be progressively addressed.”

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Oct 2010 10:27

is the IN and IAF barak-8 missile exactly the same with 70km range?

is there a chance a fatter 1st stage motor or 1-2m longer length would permit a 9m96e2ski like 120km range but retaining the same airframe and electronics for a big missile + small missile combo as in the S300 systems?

this might permit not just defence of a city sized area but harassment/interdiction attacks from outside the launch range of a wider variety of air delivered munitions or taking potshots at aircraft passing by to other targets...esp for IN , longer the range the better.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 18 Oct 2010 10:39

koti wrote:
Remember Akash is a command guidance system, So irrespective of number of targets tracked you need to upload the guidance information to the missile. Now the number of missiles that can be simultaneously guided depends upon the number of available channels which in this case are 12 per Rajendra and hence 12 missiles.
Does it mean 12 operators?
I've seen a SA-3 being guided by a missile operator using some track balls. Is it the same or the command center can handle the automated lock on the target(Which I believe is the case)??

Actually the missiles are tracked/guidance commands generated automatically using their transponder beacon, the operator only tracks the target (using a wheel for antenna steering) in manual mode. Sa-3 does have auto mode.

I believe it's all automated in Akash.

Cheers....

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 18 Oct 2010 10:44

In India, the MR-SAM will progressively replace the IAF’s antiquated Soviet-vintage SA-3 Pechora and SA-8 OSA-AK SAM systems.

I thought that Akash is supposed to replace SA-3, MR-SAM doesn't even fall in the category of SA-8 and SA-3.

The Pechora, OSA-AK and 9K38 Igla man-portable SAM systems are Effectively Obsolete, and the IAF admits it has had to Cannibalize Equipment to keep a minimum number operationally effective.

What is going to replace Igla? Any MANPAD in development/RFI stage?

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Oct 2010 11:55

MANPADS have not seen any major investment lately. the 'latest' product is the stinger block2 which started development in 1996!! I think its mostly not used in favour of the Humraam http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/humraam/ which is mobile due to hummer and has a far better engagement envelope with a ceiling of 50,000ft , plus leverages continuing invesments in amraam tech.

only in mountain areas with only goat tracks, a MANPAD might have some use in todays war.

the stinger on bradley came and went in a tiny 100 order
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/linebacker/

US has no real need to invest in manpads - a F15E on-call armed with 8 amraams and apg63v3 radar is the best manpad around

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Oct 2010 12:54

Not sure what will replace Igla-S in Indian Inventory that is probably long way off but the Russians have a Igla follow on under development its called "Verba"

The Verba MANPADS,whose missile carries a 3-waveband optical homer and will replace Igla MANPADS. Unlike its predecessors,the Verba's range,altitude and speed have increased by 20,30 and 20 per cent respectively to 0.5 –5.4km,0.01 –4.5 km and 500 m/s respectively. Its reaction time is within 8 s,and its warhead has gained 1.5 kg more weight – an increase of 20 per cent.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Oct 2010 17:17

Yes, manpads have very limited envelopes, and useful for defending caves and sangars when attacking CAS aircraft have to slow down to accurately deliver munitions without collateral damage to the kindergarten/hospital/presswallahs in the next cave/sangar.

Or for defending beacheads like Falklands. Otherwise their envelopes are too small for any effective use.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Oct 2010 18:27

I think these days you can make better use of MANPADS like Stinger and other to take out low flying subsonic cruise missile and low flying UAV , choppers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Oct 2010 20:39

big uavs tend to fly at 20,000+ft quietly these days...outside of manpad ceiling. low end nishant type UAVs could be targeted I suppose. helicopters could be targeted....but are harder targets to bag except in the moutains where movement is sluggish.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 18 Oct 2010 23:36

srai wrote: I just did a rough estimate and took 13 THD-1955 radar facilities as mentioned by [url=http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/09/ind ... twork.html]. If you look at the THD-1955 radar facilities as shown in the image below, they cover all the border areas stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.

I have heard of these "13 THD 1955 sites" quite some time back. I am not too sure of the location of these radars as marked in the map, INDIASAMNETEW.jpg. I am aware, thru other sources, of the location of some of these sites e.g. one near Bangalore and others. But I have my doubts on the locations of some of these sites. These site were set up quite some time back and I doubt if we had the vision to "cover all the border areas stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal" .

K

I would love to discuss this issue in detail and perhaps know the locations of ALL these sites. If you know please e-mail me on k e r s i k d o t i w a l l a at r e d i f f m a i l dot com. I don't want to discuss this issue on an open forum

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Oct 2010 07:00

Erm, I could be off but I thought that the thd 1955s are the same "tin shields' that are part of the S-300 system

So does India have them or not?

CM.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 19 Oct 2010 08:07

Cain Marko wrote:Erm, I could be off but I thought that the thd 1955s are the same "tin shields' that are part of the S-300 system So does India have them or not?

CM.

CM mullah good to see you back in action pliss to visit more onlee.

IIRC the thd 1955s are the French early warning long range radars onlee whereas the STU 68 Nato name Tin Shield came out with the S300s.
However in Indian Service the Tin Shield has been seen on ze western borders (dunno about east) deployed by itself serving for long range tracking onlee.

They both are distinctly different radar systems from the East and the West. The THDs are loved by the armed forces and have provided awesome service, the Tin Shields too on their part have proved very good in service would be interesting to find out what upgrades have been given to them...however given the nature and importance of these it will probably never be revealed in public

JMT

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 19 Oct 2010 12:13

I am not too sure.

Are ST 68U, Nato Codename "Tin Shield" and 36D6 the same equipment or are they different radars ? Can somebody please confirm ?

SBM, where are you ? You should be omni present on this thread.

K

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 19 Oct 2010 12:30

Kersi D wrote:I am not too sure.

Are ST 68U, Nato Codename "Tin Shield" and 36D6 the same equipment or are they different radars ? Can somebody please confirm ?

SBM, where are you ? You should be omni present on this thread.

K

Saar IIRC 400% sure that they are the same thing.

I had some old reports translated from Russian on the S300 cant seem to find them now

but the differnce primarily being in designation names between local/export/nato reporting names onlee

Here is what a quick google kaka search says:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... shield.htm
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble- ... ocId703537
36D6/ST-68UM/5N59 Tin Shield (РАДИОЛОКАЦИОННАЯ СТАНЦИЯ)

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 19 Oct 2010 12:48

Can somebody give me some information on PSM 33 radars of IAF ? Any idea of their location ?

In all our discussions we have grossly overlooked our Indra radars ? Where would they fit in our AD system.

Kersi

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 12:58

Tin Shield long range search and acquisation radar ( C&C ) is used by IAF in conjunction with SA-3 batteries , Tin Shield provided the long range searc/track and that data is subsequently fed to SA-3 FC radar/batteries which priorities the track/target and refines the search for a FC solution

The Soviets used it very early on with the earlier model of S-300 and later on moved to first gen phased array types when they were available.

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Oct 2010 13:57

Austin wrote:Tin Shield long range search and acquisation radar ( C&C ) is used by IAF in conjunction with SA-3 batteries , Tin Shield provided the long range searc/track and that data is subsequently fed to SA-3 FC radar/batteries which priorities the track/target and refines the search for a FC solution

Sir, I believe Flat Face was used for that purpose.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 15:03

koti wrote:Sir, I believe Flat Face was used for that purpose.

Sir , P-15 are museum quality radar and are phased out , Tin Shied forms the nucleus of Base AD along with other radars that control the layered defense missile batteries like Pechora and others , that would perhaps change soon with big deals and Akash in the pipeline.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Oct 2010 15:12

the antique SA3 and SA2 sure needs to be phased out asap along with their star trek era control trailers and UIs.

ideally all the SAMs should be controlled from a unified launch trailer from spyder level upto AAD but realistically best we can hope for is Spyder+Akash+Barak-II in one C3I center and a separate layered ABM control center for PAD and AAD.

the days of people calling out targets and writing on a piece of glass with chalk are so 60s....more like soothing PYT (see typhoon video on youtube feeds it to MRCA via datalink and he launches the hunt).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Oct 2010 17:21

antique they may be, but in our context they may still have an useful life... not all PAF aircraft will be supported by ECM kitted F16's and Mirages

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Oct 2010 20:36

andy B wrote:CM mullah good to see you back in action pliss to visit more onlee.

IIRC the thd 1955s are the French early warning long range radars onlee whereas the STU 68 Nato name Tin Shield came out with the S300s.
However in Indian Service the Tin Shield has been seen on ze western borders (dunno about east) deployed by itself serving for long range tracking onlee.

They both are distinctly different radar systems from the East and the West. The THDs are loved by the armed forces and have provided awesome service, the Tin Shields too on their part have proved very good in service would be interesting to find out what upgrades have been given to them...however given the nature and importance of these it will probably never be revealed in public
JMT

Thank you Andy jaan; phor some reason, I am thinking 1955 = S300 wonlee - deep seated desire manifests itself every now and again

, no doubt the shrinks have a name for such phenomena!

CM

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Oct 2010 21:18

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 21 Oct 2010 09:49

removed..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Oct 2010 10:22

^^^

DDM

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 21 Oct 2010 15:44

"Lastly, We could Develop More Armament Programmes that are Efficient and Adapted to the Needs of Both Armed Forces," Morin said to a question on how Indo-French strategic partnership could be improved in the defence sector.

With regard to Defence Equipment Cooperation, Morin said France's own History had made it "Extremely Sensitive" to India's Desire to Favour Local Production and Development of its Defence Industries.

"This relation has always been characterised by mutual trust and technological cooperation. As always, we are following the true course of partnership," he said

Regarding the Maitri Missile Project, the French Defence Minister said the MBDA-DRDO Joint Effort was "Unprecedented" involving Extremely Ambitious Transfers of Technology.

"The Anti-Aircraft Defence System (is being) Developed in India, which will use this Missile to meet the Requirements of the IAF and the Navy, as well as the Army, should the latter wish to join the programme. I am confident of the completion of this project, which perfectly illustrates the spirit of our strategic partnership as it implies the joint development of a new weapon system," he said.

He was also hopeful that French industries will supply the reconnaissance and observation helicopters to India, apart from participating in the second phase of six conventional submarines for which Navy has already issued a Request for Information.

"We must together explore other possible areas of applying the renewed cooperation, accompanied by Real Transfer of Technology," he said.

Pointing out to the bilateral naval exercise 'Varuna' and air force exercise 'Garuda' between India and France, Morin said the two were "major manoeuvres that enable us to develop and implement new tactics, which can be directly used, for instance, to fight piracy."

"These Joint Manoeuvres are also Internationally Recognised for their High Standards and Stir Much Interest, as Reflected in the Participation of the Singaporean Air Force in the 'Garuda' Exercise held in France in June 2010," he noted.

Link

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Oct 2010 15:50

is the maitri going to be based around the vl-mica system ? or something entirely new ? the IAF Is buying lots of Spyder and the navy has barak-I, both of which can be improved via a block2....so they would they be interested in maitri unless its a longer ranged or novel thing?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Oct 2010 16:00

If you are going for ground launched VL MICA. Why not design the ground launched VL Astra with a booster stage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Oct 2010 18:47

^^ For that we need to get basic variant of Astra up and running , once we reach there we can think of improvising it to VL or other variant. Astra from what we know will not come before 2012 and they would probably spend early years in the IAF validating those missile and getting it operational and integrating with other aircraft.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 12:11

Austin,

It need not be in that order. If I am not mistaken, the changes in the system will not be substantial. Also, the air launch and ground launched system can be developed side by side. As the seeker and air frame will remain the same. AS will the fuel of the weapon. Wht will change is the mide of employing the weapon. It will require tinkering.

Perhaps, (Purely speculation on my part) Maitri is a ground launched Astra it self. With the MBDA help brought to turn it into VL system.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Oct 2010 21:09

Kersi D wrote:Can somebody give me some information on PSM 33 radars of IAF ? Any idea of their location ?

In all our discussions we have grossly overlooked our Indra radars ? Where would they fit in our AD system.

Kersi

Hey where's everybody ? Has a war broken out ? Nobody is answering my questions ?

K

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Oct 2010 22:40

How about this for Acquisition

MBDA's New Bunker Buster Warhead
Indian Defence Review

Hard and Deeply Buried Target (HARDBUT) Next Generation Multiple Warhead System (NGMWS)

MBDA Conducts Successful Demonstrations of New Bunker Buster Warhead
MBDA

Next Generation Multiple Warhead System - Wikipedia

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Oct 2010 22:55

Juggi, its the tandem warhead ie a shaped charge followed by a conventional warhead. First Germans wont sell to India. Secondly this is funded by Brits and French too. After Gulf War I the Brits came with the idea and called it BROACH. This must be a development of that.

Its good for over ground a/c hangers type targets and does the job in less size then pure kinetic energy LGB. However for deeply buried ie undergorund like in TSPA fizzle ya bunkers one needs kinetic energy smart iron bombs that can go deep and take them out.
I am a firm believer in KE iron bombs.

What IAF needs to do is have some techical officer take over who has good target practice experience.

Its not as simple as put some wing kits and guidance on a iron dumb bomb. There is fusion of electroincs for fuzing, metallurgy for casing, aerodynamics to make it fly, chemistry for explosive and intelligence about targets.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Oct 2010 00:04

ramana, Thanks for explaning it all.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 23 Oct 2010 01:18

if the Prithvi body is made of a earth penetrating alloy like tungsten and with a tandem warhead when fired in a trajectory that gives it a very high mach in terminal stage probably can do the bunker busting job

on a different note can a fighter radar track a BVR AAM even before the latter goes active with its seeker? how different is that from detecting a VLO cruise missile or does one have to depend on a big radars such as AWACS?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Oct 2010 01:32

The accuracy has to go up quite a bit to do that. We are talking 1m accuracy.