Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 29 Mar 2016 22:39

Is the Akash NG supposed to have a seeker? That would be awesome.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2016 00:12

Austin wrote:DRDO working on Star Wars-like weapons

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 577689.cms

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is already tom-tomming its ongoing development of a 10-kilowatt DEW against UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) like targets, with "the establishment of critical technologies of precision tracking/pointing and laser beam combination".

The "system" has been tested up to a range of 800 meters at its Hyderabad-based Centre for High Energy Systems and Sciences (CHESS), and was also demonstrated to the armed forces at the Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory's firing range at Ramgarh (Haryana) in September last year.

The DRDO's Laser Science & Technology Centre is working on an array of systems from "chemical oxygen iodine lasers" to "high-power fiber lasers" for strategic uses, which includes a 25-kilowatt laser to take on a ballistic missile du-ring its "terminal phase" at a distance of 5-7 km.

All this has gained momentum after the government in February 2014 sanctioned Rs 115 crore for de-velopment of "experimental technology modules for directed energy laser syst-ems" by CHESS, with the project completion date being set for July 2017.

Have they named the short range (10Kw) and the long range (25Kw) DEWs? They would be serious then.

BTW these are very important milestones and program plans.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 30 Mar 2016 00:24

From the same OneIndia report: A planned launch of Nirbhay with Brahmos seeker by December.

This is very, very interesting. In a Land Attack mode, it can be used for targeting high value, mobile targets. In an anti-shipping role, Nirbhay can become a Very Long Range, High subsonic AshM! The pop-up/pop-down & waypoint capabilities have already been demonstrated. Its fairly stealthy. And with a 450 Kg warhead, it can devastate any ship

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Mar 2016 05:10

^ depends what you mean by very long range...the missile is subsonic so any range that exceeds 10-15 minutes eta might not be of much use...the target ship will move a good distance in that time. Bmos works because time to target is ridiculously low. But would make a fabulous 1200km lacm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2016 05:30

Cain Marko wrote:^ depends what you mean by very long range...the missile is subsonic so any range that exceeds 10-15 minutes eta might not be of much use...the target ship will move a good distance in that time. Bmos works because time to target is ridiculously low. But would make a fabulous 1200km lacm

Unable to follow what you mean. Why should movement of the ship be a problem if the missile is tracking the ship or the ship's position is updated. In fact a ship moving at say 20 knots would have moved 1 km in less than 2 minutes and no one claims that Brahmos can reach its target from 300 km in less than 2 minutes. All Brahmos missiles would miss all moving ships in that event.

John · Post by **John** » 30 Mar 2016 05:45

Because the missile seekers have limited range (70km). Most missiles typically enable their seeker during thier mid course and briefly before entering terminal phase ( typically 30 km from target). Brahmos takes 5+ minutes to cover 300 km not 2 km during that time a ship can easy be any where in 50 km sq area.

With subsonic missile that is 3 to 4 times bigger, bigger area to scan for a target lowers the intercept porbability and higher risk of hitting the wrong target.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 30 Mar 2016 06:14

The russian version of Iskander has 480 km range, very potent. I am surprized IA never asked for something similar. Brahmos is too expensive for such work and Prithvi is outdated.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Mar 2016 06:23

Bheeshma wrote:The russian version of Iskander has 480 km range, very potent. I am surprized IA never asked for something similar. Brahmos is too expensive for such work and Prithvi is outdated.

We have Nirbhay and Brahmos for conventional payloads and Agni I and Shaurya for strategic. What's the use?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2016 06:36

John wrote:Because the missile seekers have limited range (70km). Most missiles typically enable their seeker during thier mid course and briefly before entering terminal phase ( typically 30 km from target). Brahmos takes 5+ minutes to cover 300 km not 2 km during that time a ship can easy be any where in 50 km sq area.

With subsonic missile that is 3 to 4 times bigger, bigger area to scan for a target lowers the intercept porbability and higher risk of hitting the wrong target.

Still don't follow what this means. Of course the missile has a shorter range seeker and selects the target near the terminal part of its guidance. But once the target is illuminated the missile tracks and follows the target. If the missile does not track and follow the target the chances of missing are very high. The difference between a guided missile and an unguided rocket is the ability to track and follow a target and ships at sea do not clump together offering juicy masses of ship. They stay kilometers apart. As long as a missile tracks the target it makes very little difference whether the missile is subsonic or supersonic. The main advantage of supersonic is that it allows very little reaction time for countermeasures.

That is the difference between a bullet and a guided missile. If a bullet is aimed at a moving target, the chances of hitting are higher if the muzzle velocity of the bullet is higher so that the target has moved less in the time it takes for the bullet to travel the distance. This is not true for any guided missile. So subsonic and supersonic have less to do with "chances of hitting" the target. That is a function of the guidance and target illumination. Supersonic missiles merely reduce the time available to take evasive countermeasures after the missile is detected. Chaff, flares, SAMs and CIWS are more likely to be used than speeding up or slowing down.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2016 06:56

Imagine a group of ships sailing as part of a battle group - say a destroyer and a couple of frigates and a minesweeper and an incoming missile (a very small very fast moving low flying object) is detected say 20 km away how will any individual ship in the group know that the missile is targeted at them and not at some other ship. Assume the ships are sailing in a loose group 1 km apart.

How much time would a subsonic missile give them. How much time would Brahmos give them?

What are the ranges of antiship missiles like
1. Harpoon
2. Sea Eagle
3. Exocet

How many of them can be launched from >50 km away?

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 30 Mar 2016 08:55

Enough of Akash, says Army as it opts for Israeli missiles

The Army is likely to go for Israeli quick-reaction surface-to-air missiles (QR-SAMs) to take on enemy fighters, helicopters and drones after firmly rejecting any further induction of the much-touted indigenous Akash missiles.
Defence ministry sources said the Army has made it clear that it does not want any more Akash regiments after it gets the first two ordered earlier for Rs 14,180 crore, with six firing batteries and hundreds of missiles each.

But the Army contends IAF is inducting Akash squadrons to guard its airbases that are located in "depth areas" inside the country, while it wants QR-SAMs to defend its formations in the "forward tactical battlefield area".

"Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage, nor the 3-4 second reaction time the Army wants. Moreover, Akash has a large radar ground signature with several vehicles required for its missile launchers, multi-function radars and the like," said a source.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Mar 2016 09:24

Manish ji, just using the article you posted for some concerns I have. Not intended for you specifically. The article has been written by Rajat Pandit. Anybody know him?

Enough-of-Akash-says-Army[/b]-as-it-opts-for-Israeli-missiles/articleshow/51608406.cms]Enough of Akash, says Army as it opts for Israeli missiles

Did the Army really say the bold part or is it headline making sensationalism?

The Army is likely to go for Israeli quick-reaction surface-to-air missiles (QR-SAMs) to take on enemy fighters, helicopters and drones after firmly rejecting any further induction of the much-touted indigenous Akash missiles.
Defence ministry sources said the Army has made it clear that it does not want any more Akash regiments after it gets the first two ordered earlier for Rs 14,180 crore, with six firing batteries and hundreds of missiles each.

Def Ministry Source - is that the Spokesperson MoD?

But the Army contends IAF is inducting Akash squadrons to guard its airbases that are located in "depth areas" inside the country, while it wants QR-SAMs to defend its formations in the "forward tactical battlefield area".

Who in the Army contends this? Details are being dropped without any background on where this info comes from.

"Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage, nor the 3-4 second reaction time the Army wants. Moreover, Akash has a large radar ground signature with several vehicles required for its missile launchers, multi-function radars and the like," said a source.

Get to the Source. Is it 'Deep Throat'?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Mar 2016 09:43

deejay wrote:The article has been written by Rajat Pandit. Anybody know him?

DJ,

How could you have missed the legendary Rajat Pandit?!!! He is the front runner for the best DDM prize. Let me show you a glimpse of his brilliance from this article itself.

This marks a major blow to the 'Make in India' policy, especially since the Navy is turning to France for similar requirements after dumping the Akash missiles for its warships due to "stabilisation problems".

False. Akash was never in contention for the Navy. The Trishul was to take care of this role in the IGDMP. And the reason for this is not any "stabilisation problem". One just has to do a few simple Google searches to find the actual reasons. Akash was designed to be powered all the way to its target. This gives it a very high hit probability. However, this also makes it very bulky. That is okay for land based systems. However, for ship based systems, volume and weight is a concern. They want the missiles to be cannisterized, light weight and vertically launched (obviating the turntable at the bottom for 360 degree coverage). Also since most anti ship missiles are sea skimming, their detection is also delayed, therefore the reaction time of the entire system (not just a the missile) must be very fast. Hence the requirement for QR. However, checking facts has never been part of Mr. Pandit's ethics. I would say that common sense isn't his forte either, because then he would have realized that many DRDO designed missiles are already deployed on IN vessels. If "stabilization" was a problem, these weapon systems would not have worked either.

Nirbhay Land-Attack Subsonic Cruise missile: All 3 tests since March 2013 have flopped.

He should be directed to the October 17, 2014 launch.

Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage

Again false. Both the Army and AF version are 360 degrees slewable.

In other cases, he has to point out that Astra and Nag are greatly delayed, but doesn't need to say the same about the Barak missiles.

It is perfectly possible that IA has a requirement for missile systems with faster reaction times, greater mobility, smaller footprint etc. for which the Akash system is not ideal. However, bashing the latter just because it is a DRDO system is necessary for the proper functioning of Mr. Rajat's digestive system.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 30 Mar 2016 09:44

Even if the army has a need for QR-SAMs which are not Akash, here's a simple fact from Wikipedia...

"The Indian military's combined orders of the Akash, including radar systems (WLR and Surveillance), have a total worth of ₹ 23,300 crore (US$4 billion)."

The Army's order would be for US$2.4 billion out of that.

If you have a 2 door sports car for yourself and a 4 door SUV for the family to travel together, it is neither a "blow" for the sports car maker or the SUV maker.

No news here. Just journalistic diarrhoea.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Mar 2016 09:54

indranilroy wrote:
deejay wrote:The article has been written by Rajat Pandit. Anybody know him?
DJ,

How could you have missed Rajat Pandit?!!! He is the front runner for the best DDM prize.

Oh!

I know him well enough, I was just attracting attention to the clowns with their jugglery for public consumption before a series of posts on IA and how it is undermining everything Indian.

A lot of money is at stake here. All the well known DeeDeeEmmers will strike.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Mar 2016 10:19

deejay wrote:Get to the Source. Is it 'Deep Throat'?

Its Deeper than that , Its Rajat Pandit !

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Mar 2016 11:18

That's a propaganda piece.

By the way any news on the QRSAM being developed by DRDO? This is a project that's separate from Maitri project.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in ... vy-2077488

Even this report do have errors. But it do mention the work about an indigenous QRSAM.

Also notice the comment by bennedose

Tender details of the same can be found here
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/vie ... icro=10216

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Mar 2016 14:57

Whenever people read BS articles about Akash and IA, please remember this - IA had grand total of two SA-6 based Missile Groups. And it has already ordered 2 x Akash Missile Regiments. Which have incidentally NOT replaced the old system. They've been used to add AD capability for addition forces beyond these earlier missile groups.

And the report is part correct but presents the information in a mischievous manner. Akash SAM will most probably be used to provide AD umbrella to high value assets from some depth. Troops upfront will be guarded by SR/QR-SAM systems. Here again, only the armored divisions have the luxury of protection by such systems. Other divisions don't. And these will require replacements. SA-10 and SA-8 are the prime candidates for replacement. Plus, in near future, we will require replacement options for the venerable ZSU-23-4 as well. This will most probably be a gun-missile combo system.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 30 Mar 2016 15:23

What about the army bases in depth?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Mar 2016 16:05

Kakkaji wrote:What about the army bases in depth?

Ammunition Depots are covered with AD assets. Along with some other VA and VP. Both gun and missile based assets are provided depending upon the task. Assets from IAF also cover apart from Army AD Corps.

And please remember, the largest component of Army AD Corps are the L-70 gun equipped AD regiments. Followed by regiments of ZSU-23-2. AD Corps has many different types of regiments which consist of varied kind of equipment and mobility. So you have AD Regiment, Light AD Regiment, Light AD Regiment (composite), Light AD Regiment (SP), AD Missile Regiment, Lt AD Missile Regiment (SP) and others.

Just for reference, a single L-70 AD regiment has 36 L-70 guns with supporting numbers of Fladermaus/Flycatcher Radars. Apart from IAF missile squadrons, IAF bases are also covered by IA L-70 AD Regiments.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 30 Mar 2016 16:20

@Deejay Sir (and other respected members)

My apologies. My intention was not just to copy-paste an f-article but also add my points/concerns. However got called for some urgent things (at work) and left it at just a copy-paste.

Again before submitting the post, i did consciously decide to put in this thread rather than the specific thread for DDMs.. my thought being that such trash needs to be publicly flogged/taken apart in threads (relevant ones) where the visibility is more and aam-abduls are more likely to visit.

PS: No 'ji' for me please (unless it is in jest

). The salutation from my side towards you, however, is sincere and well-deserved in due consideration of your service to the nation.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Mar 2016 17:15

"Decorum" comes first.
Calling out obvious hit jobs and rightful abuse is grounds for censure.
Sweet.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Mar 2016 19:10

Manish_P wrote:@Deejay Sir (and other respected members)

My apologies. My intention was not just to copy-paste an f-article but also add my points/concerns. However got called for some urgent things (at work) and left it at just a copy-paste.

Again before submitting the post, i did consciously decide to put in this thread rather than the specific thread for DDMs.. my thought being that such trash needs to be publicly flogged/taken apart in threads (relevant ones) where the visibility is more and aam-abduls are more likely to visit.

PS: No 'ji' for me please (unless it is in jest ). The salutation from my side towards you, however, is sincere and well-deserved in due consideration of your service to the nation.

Yes, Manish (and lets mutually agree to keep it without "Ji"

), I understood what you were trying and just wished to point out the pure science of identifying DDMitis. You had actually split it in quotes very nicely for me to point out my observations with the article. It was a perfect example of a farticle though there are others which are better camouflaged.

Almost as a rule, if the article does not mention a named source, I put it in the hit job bracket. The Military, Babus, Politicians, DRDO labs and PSU's have shortcomings and are open to criticism. Infact, they are routinely put under various and detailed scrutiny. Our system in India may not be the best but it is certainly one of the most open. Some of the things being publicly shared through the Parliament, CAG report or media interviews and press conference leaves me wondering what exactly is a "Secret". Yet, these pundits of shallow journalism won't spare us their sub par creative writing.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Mar 2016 20:05

Manish,

Absolutely no need to explain your post. I don't think anybody has any complaints about the same. This kind of reporting has to be flagged. Keeping it limited to defense forums is not enough. We have to find a way to take them on in the open where they enjoy much wider viewership. I don't think the good journalist would mind it.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 Mar 2016 21:11

indranilroy wrote:Manish,

Absolutely no need to explain your post. I don't think anybody has any complaints about the same. This kind of reporting has to be flagged. Keeping it limited to defense forums is not enough. We have to find a way to take them on in the open where they enjoy much wider viewership. I don't think the good journalist would mind it.

There are numerous alternative websites producing content that reaches far and wide. Frustrated Indian, opindia come to mind immediately. Even if one were to copy paste and format the content in the forum itself, BR could put out engaging content free from lobbyist propaganda and spin weekly or on an as needed basis. The forum's reach is indeed limited, while its quality is pretty good.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Mar 2016 21:26

Yes, hosting quality rebuttals somewhere is a good start. We can use forum members to also show strength. For example, I write a rebuttal somewhere (say frustratedindian) and post the link in the comments section of the news. Then, notify forum members of the comment, who in turn visit the news page and upvote the comment. This makes the comment "most liked", or "top" comment which gets highlighted on most news sites these days.

However, we have to be careful. For example, the forum cannot stand for the personal political bias of the rebuttal writer. How do we check this. Should there be a vetting process for the rebuttal?

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Mar 2016 21:44

What happened to the Akash on tracked chassis ? I thought that was the army variant to protect corps in action. Now, the army version also seems to be using truck as carrier like the AF.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Mar 2016 06:20

srin wrote:What happened to the Akash on tracked chassis ? I thought that was the army variant to protect corps in action. Now, the army version also seems to be using truck as carrier like the AF.

I think the tracked version has been abandoned.

Truck-mounted Army launcher is quite different from the AirForce version. Army's version is mounted permanently on a 8x8 high mobility truck whereas the Air Force version is more of a trailer based with the option to dismount the launcher in a static position.

Air Force

Army

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Mar 2016 09:28

shiv wrote:Unable to follow what you mean. Why should movement of the ship be a problem if the missile is tracking the ship or the ship's position is updated. In fact a ship moving at say 20 knots would have moved 1 km in less than 2 minutes and no one claims that Brahmos can reach its target from 300 km in less than 2 minutes. All Brahmos missiles would miss all moving ships in that event.

I'm not sure they would launch a AShm like Bmos @ max ranges. Still, if the said ship has moved a couple of km in the time frame, the Bmos seeker should be able to pick it up, esp. since it wiould be a high altitude trajectory at max range. Same cannot be said for a Nirbhay launched @ its max range (1000km) or even @ 300km. By the time it arrives in the vicinity of the target, it would have traveled a long ways.

If subsonics have to travel very long ranges (brahmos and greater), they would need to be continuously updated by a sensor in the loop like an MPAA, which means the said platform would have to hang around for quite some time. Even if this was possible, it is still impractical because the moment the target ship is aware of the MPAA, chances would reduce...

My guess is that it is for this reason that sub-sonic cruise missiles have never had ranges much more than 125km. IIRC, the USN was tinkering with a 240km Harpoon and some kind of LRASM - > 500NM

. But then, no other country has the kind of sensor saturation that the USN has.

Anyway, this is mostly guesswork - the point I was making was in response to a post that the Nirbhay could be used as an AshM @ v.long ranges. TSarkar sir would probably have much to say...

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Mar 2016 10:07

indranilroy wrote:Yes, hosting quality rebuttals somewhere is a good start. We can use forum members to also show strength. For example, I write a rebuttal somewhere (say frustratedindian) and post the link in the comments section of the news. Then, notify forum members of the comment, who in turn visit the news page and upvote the comment. This makes the comment "most liked", or "top" comment which gets highlighted on most news sites these days.

However, we have to be careful. For example, the forum cannot stand for the personal political bias of the rebuttal writer. How do we check this. Should there be a vetting process for the rebuttal?

As someone who has written a handful of such rebuttals, I suggest keeping politics out of the piece entirely, unless one is writing about a decision that was taken at the political level (eg. Parrikar firmly pressing the IAF to order 120-odd Tejas Mk-1A). It unnecessarily gets in the way of the point you're trying to make and makes you look like a political shill instead of a nonpartisan observer.

Also, it's best to stay away from sites like The Frustrated Indian. The site has very little credibility. Instead, write for Swarajya or IDR. Both are very open to accepting content provided it meets a certain standard of quality and rigor. Then cross-post it to BRF and have members publicise it on Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2016 10:17

producing bullshit is very cheap and comes naturally to vested interests after decades of practice.

refuting it is hard work via SM, with no entry into printed media for us.

I finally got rid of TOI, having banished all the english news channels from my tata sky pack last year.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Mar 2016 10:20

Cain Marko wrote:
shiv wrote:Unable to follow what you mean. Why should movement of the ship be a problem if the missile is tracking the ship or the ship's position is updated. In fact a ship moving at say 20 knots would have moved 1 km in less than 2 minutes and no one claims that Brahmos can reach its target from 300 km in less than 2 minutes. All Brahmos missiles would miss all moving ships in that event.
I'm not sure they would launch a AShm like Bmos @ max ranges. Still, if the said ship has moved a couple of km in the time frame, the Bmos seeker should be able to pick it up, esp. since it wiould be a high altitude trajectory at max range. Same cannot be said for a Nirbhay launched @ its max range (1000km) or even @ 300km. By the time it arrives in the vicinity of the target, it would have traveled a long ways.

If subsonics have to travel very long ranges (brahmos and greater), they would need to be continuously updated by a sensor in the loop like an MPAA, which means the said platform would have to hang around for quite some time. Even if this was possible, it is still impractical because the moment the target ship is aware of the MPAA, chances would reduce...

My guess is that it is for this reason that sub-sonic cruise missiles have never had ranges much more than 125km. IIRC, the USN was tinkering with a 240km Harpoon and some kind of LRASM - > 500NM . But then, no other country has the kind of sensor saturation that the USN has.

Anyway, this is mostly guesswork - the point I was making was in response to a post that the Nirbhay could be used as an AshM @ v.long ranges. TSarkar sir would probably have much to say...

You're right. Long range naval target acquisition and tracking is an incredibly tough problem to crack. Soviet ships used a dedicated OTH targeting helicopter (Ka-25T) for this purpose. My guess is that the IN uses its Ka-31s in a similar role. The LRNA bomber fleets used Tu-95RC planes equipped with the MRSC-1 Uspekh targeting system flying ahead of the Tu-22M formations and providing targeting data. These were considered very vulnerable to Tomcat CAPs flying off US carriers. All said and done, the never quite solved the problem of obtaining accurate and reliable target tracks and classifications, and depended on the missile salvoes finding and hitting ships with the largest radar signatures.

The US Navy gave up trying to build long-range anti-ship missiles for this reason and decided instead to put missiles on targeting platforms that could defend themselves adequately, i.e. the Intruder and Hornet.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 31 Mar 2016 10:32

Mihir wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Yes, hosting quality rebuttals somewhere is a good start. We can use forum members to also show strength. For example, I write a rebuttal somewhere (say frustratedindian) and post the link in the comments section of the news. Then, notify forum members of the comment, who in turn visit the news page and upvote the comment. This makes the comment "most liked", or "top" comment which gets highlighted on most news sites these days.

However, we have to be careful. For example, the forum cannot stand for the personal political bias of the rebuttal writer. How do we check this. Should there be a vetting process for the rebuttal?
As someone who has written a handful of such rebuttals, I suggest keeping politics out of the piece entirely, unless one is writing about a decision that was taken at the political level (eg. Parrikar firmly pressing the IAF to order 120-odd Tejas Mk-1A). It unnecessarily gets in the way of the point you're trying to make and makes you look like a political shill instead of a nonpartisan observer.

Also, it's best to stay away from sites like The Frustrated Indian. The site has very little credibility. Instead, write for Swarajya or IDR. Both are very open to accepting content provided it meets a certain standard of quality and rigor. Then cross-post it to BRF and have members publicise it on Twitter, Reddit, etc.

I agree with Mihir Ji. Politics of all kinds have to be kept away from rebuttals. The rebuttal has to be from an Indian perspective and completely based on facts.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 31 Mar 2016 10:38

So, by "butt"ing out politics, you are asking to keep it "re"-"al"?

I will show myself out, sorry...

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 31 Mar 2016 10:38

See how one buffoon puts out a propoganda piece and how the remaining monkeys are copying and pasting it.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/blo ... 70549.html

http://www.oneindia.com/india/massive-b ... 55307.html

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/blo ... 70549.html

And strange thing is everyone is quoting the buffoon report.

Can this be brought to the MOD and defense minister notice how propaganda is unleashed against indigenous weapon systems. Similar attempts were made just few days against Tejas during Iron Fist 2016. These are not one off reports but repeated misinformation campaign against indigenous weapon system.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 31 Mar 2016 11:56

I read this report and thought that something was off in the reporting.
Earlier this month i had attended a DRDO vendor meet where they were asking for SME's to come forward to make parts for their missile projects. The numbers estimated for the Akash system are 30 per month presently and moving to 50-60 per month by the end of the year. It was also interesting to note that the cost of the actual missile is less than 20% of the cost of the systems.
There are multiple private companies that have been given responsibility for large sub-assembly production so that BDL can increase final assembly rates.

All of the currently missile systems LRSAM, MRSAM, AKASH etc are in going to be in full scale production very soon. The amount of work done by DRDO is just phenomenal and they have taken the right track of collaborating when required (not reinventing the wheel) and developing themselves when tech already exists.

uddu wrote:See how one buffoon puts out a propoganda piece and how the remaining monkeys are copying and pasting it.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/blo ... 70549.html

http://www.oneindia.com/india/massive-b ... 55307.html

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/blo ... 70549.html

And strange thing is everyone is quoting the buffoon report.

Can this be brought to the MOD and defense minister notice how propaganda is unleashed against indigenous weapon systems. Similar attempts were made just few days against Tejas during Iron Fist 2016. These are not one off reports but repeated misinformation campaign against indigenous weapon system.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 31 Mar 2016 13:37

BEL says work on Quick Reaction Missile progressing

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) says the joint development of the QR-SAM (Quick Reaction, Surface to Air Missile) is progressing as planned along with the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Speaking to OneIndia at the ongoing Defence Expo in Goa, Dr Kalghatgi, Director (R&D), BEL, said the lessons from the successful development of Akash Missile System would come handy for the ongoing project.

QR-SAM will have better reach than Akash "The QR-SAM will be a smart weapon that would be completely be made in India. It would be mounted on a vehicle (similar to Akash) with a launcher. Both the launcher and the vehicle will also be home-grown," says Dr Kalghatgi.

He said initially the Indian Army would be the customer for the new missile, that promises better range and performance than Akash. "The sensors are currently being developed for the missile. We hope to have the full integration of the missile by the next two years," says Dr Kalghatgi.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Mar 2016 18:41

Kakarat wrote:BEL says work on Quick Reaction Missile progressing

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) says the joint development of the QR-SAM (Quick Reaction, Surface to Air Missile) is progressing as planned along with the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Speaking to OneIndia at the ongoing Defence Expo in Goa, Dr Kalghatgi, Director (R&D), BEL, said the lessons from the successful development of Akash Missile System would come handy for the ongoing project.

QR-SAM will have better reach than Akash "The QR-SAM will be a smart weapon that would be completely be made in India. It would be mounted on a vehicle (similar to Akash) with a launcher. Both the launcher and the vehicle will also be home-grown," says Dr Kalghatgi.

He said initially the Indian Army would be the customer for the new missile, that promises better range and performance than Akash. "The sensors are currently being developed for the missile. We hope to have the full integration of the missile by the next two years," says Dr Kalghatgi.

This news item has very interesting information from an authentic source that QRSAM would have range & performance better than Akash, which means atleast 25km+. Therefore my guess is that QRSAM will not be using Astra-1 or Astra-2 as the basis for the missile. I would think that QRSAM size & dimensions would be similar to MRSAM=LRSAM=Barak-2 and the motor may be single pulse to ensure very fast speed while the seeker, electronics may come from Astra programme.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Mar 2016 18:49

Gyan,
MOD.NIC.IN Annual Report.

Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile
(QRSAM): QRSAM weapon system is capable
of search on move, track on move and fire on
short halts while engaging multiple targets
at ranges of about 30 km with two vehicle
configuration for Area Air Defence. System
design has been completed and most of the
sub-systems including X-Band Quad Transmit
Receive Modules (QTRMs), Two Way Data
Link (TWDL) onboard segment etc. are under
realization. Missile configuration has been
finalized.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 31 Mar 2016 18:54

Good update. Thanks Kakarat.