Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 20 Dec 2014 21:08

Glide ratio of 1:10 is fantastic for what should be a drop bomb

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Dec 2014 21:35

One will have to keep in mind that 100+ km max range will be for sea level targets when dropped from a certain speed and altitude. The range will be much degraded when the target in mountainous/high altitude areas.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Dec 2014 22:10

SSridhar wrote:
Gyan wrote:"By the end of the next year [2014], we want to complete all the development trials of the glide bombs before offering it to the IAF," he said.
So, it has completed all trials now and the announcement is being made for the first time after it is all over. Great job.

Hopefully the mentioned glide bombs includes Sudarshan kits also. We need those to replace all our dumb bombs. When one bomb can do the job of five, the days of drop-n-pray should be over.

The rationale for the silent one-tonner is indeed a subject of some happy speculation. As a penetration weapon it should be able to take out an underground fortress. As a high explosive weapon, it would flatten a building as large as the Pentagon or our Parliament. As an area weapon it would stop a tank column or regiment dead in its tracks. IOW, its a couple of steps short of a tactical nuke without the political baggage.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 20 Dec 2014 23:10

Victor wrote: The rationale for the silent one-tonner is indeed a subject of some happy speculation. As a penetration weapon it should be able to take out an underground fortress. As a high explosive weapon, it would flatten a building as large as the Pentagon or our Parliament. As an area weapon it would stop a tank column or regiment dead in its tracks. IOW, its a couple of steps short of a tactical nuke without the political baggage.

one tonne Saar, not one kiloton.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2014 23:48

its far too small to take a building as large as you say.....but it will take care of a typical 4-storey tech park building around 100,000 sq ft with open floor plans and glass n steel frame.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Dec 2014 23:53

One more importat question: What does this glide bomb look like ?

Assuming that 700-750 kg of the mass is explosives, the impact of this bomb will be substantial. 2-3 bombs like this can demolish a dam with ease.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 21 Dec 2014 00:32

Singha wrote:its far too small to take a building as large as you say.....but it will take care of a typical 4-storey tech park building around 100,000 sq ft with open floor plans and glass n steel frame.

Even a 4 story building of that size might survive a 1000 Kg bomb. There's this excellent documentary on Shin Bet, The Gatekeepers (very highly recommended), where the former heads of Shin Bet describe a strike mission on a three story building where the who's who of the Hamas leadership had assembled. There were heated debates on whether to use a 250 Kg bomb or a 450 Kg bomb to take out the building. In the end it was decided to use the 250 Kg bomb to minimise collateral damage. The bomb barely destroyed the top floor while all the targets were on ground floor, all of them ran away unhurt.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Dec 2014 04:22

Jaeger wrote: one tonne Saar, not one kiloton.

Tactical and suitcase nukes can be sub-kiloton. The W54 nuke could have a yield as little as 10 tons (daisy cutter conventional bomb is 6 tons). What I'm getting at is the pakis trotted out the threat of tactical nukes to stop a Cold Start type thrust but then they would have to go nuclear with all the baggage that entails (ie: being glassified totally). It's a very big deal if we can do similar damage without going nuclear and that too from our own airspace.

A 1-ton precision bomb like the Paveway III with 1 meter CEP, it can flatten a large building if it is designed for high explosive blast. We saw some being dropped down llift shafts to demolish large buildings in the Iraq war for eg. Like the Mk-84 one-tonner, it could carry almost 2,000 bomblets to pretty much wipe out a regiment or armored column just like a tactical nuke is designed to do. The difference is it can do this in denied airspace without warning. It would be too small to detect and shoot down and of course it would be totally silent.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 21 Dec 2014 04:29

If its made of radar invisible composites, then night time bombing would be extremely deadly. Even daytime bombing would end up being deadly. I dont know if the control surfaces allow it to fine tune its trajectory especially at the end, where it can nosedive into the designated target from a certain height.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Dec 2014 04:32

abhik wrote:One will have to keep in mind that 100+ km max range will be for sea level targets when dropped from a certain speed and altitude. The range will be much degraded when the target in mountainous/high altitude areas.

IIRC our Mirage 2000s dropped LGBs in Kargil from 30k ft and 15 km away. If we halve the projected range of this bomb we can still strike the mountains easily from twice that distance.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2014 08:01

Thakur_B wrote:
Singha wrote:its far too small to take a building as large as you say.....but it will take care of a typical 4-storey tech park building around 100,000 sq ft with open floor plans and glass n steel frame.
Even a 4 story building of that size might survive a 1000 Kg bomb.

It will not be usable after that sort of blast.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2014 08:31

There are configurable fuses that count floors and measure depth (horizontally/vertically). Both reduce the need for larger munition and manage collateral damage.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Dec 2014 10:10

Bigger the bomb higher the proportion of explosives.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2014 10:25

Here is the damage done by 500 kg of explosives in the Mariott hotel blast

The blast from an estimated half tonne of explosives left a huge crater some 20 metres wide and 8 metres deep and sparked a fire that rapidly engulfed the hotel and took 12 hours to bring under control.

Effect of 850 kg bomb (V1, London WW2)

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 21 Dec 2014 15:21

Shiv, V1 weighed about 1.5 tonnes by itself, without the explosives. This would be capable of causing significant damage on its own.

Destroying civilian buildings and hardened military buildings are different matter. 1-ton glide bomb need not be used against every target but it will add significant optionality to mission planning. Attaining cheap stand-off capability is the key achievement here. Rest all will depend on IAF's mission requirements.

Added later: I'm surprised no one correlated this development to IAF's 3 decade old capability to toss nuclear bombs. While those did not require as much precision, they eventually had smart-glide capabilities. This knowledge was used in the depressed flight profile of our first nuclear-capable missile, the Prithvi. I vaguely recollect ArunS also making this correlation many years ago.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Dec 2014 15:59

Gyan wrote:Might be something like MSOV of Israel.

That could be true.

MSOV - Modular Stand Off Vehicle

Description:
MSOV (Modular Stand Off Vehicle) - a non-powered, GPS/INS guided air-launched long range aerial vehicle. The weapon's cargo compartment can accommodate an exceptionally large warhead and is capable of carrying and releasing a variety of payloads. The weapon's modular design enables the payload to be tailored to meet customer's requirements, including the incorporation of the customer's submunition.

The vehicle can be programmed for deployment from either high or low altitudes, including launch in toss profile, at high or low launch velocities, for extended range.

• Air Launched Stand Off
• Accurate GPS/INS Guidance
• Aircraft compatibility
- Variety of Fighter Aircraft
- No Need for Avionic Integration
• Fire & Forget Concept
• Pre-Planned Flight Profiles

Technical Specifications:
• Max Weight................1050 Kg
• Max Payload ................675 Kg
• Length..........................3.97 m
• Wings Span..................2.70 m
• Max Range....................100 km

The weight of the carrier vehicle is almost 400kg. Warhead carried is 675kg.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 21 Dec 2014 19:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Jo ... off_Weapon

AGM-154C (unitary variant)[edit]
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Dec 2014 20:27

A bomb precision glide kit called SWAK was displayed at AI 2011. Don't know if the costs would justify it but a silent shower of 250 lb bombs out of the blue (or black of night), mixed incendiary, HE, anti-personnel, would devastate a terrorist site in PoK and severely damage their motivation. These guys understand the value of psychological warfare so its time we used it against them. Since we have developed the tech, might as well dial it up and down to make use of all our dumb bombs before their expiry date.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 21 Dec 2014 22:00

From wiki on Pinaka

"A 7.2-metre rocket for the Pinaka MBRL, which can reach a distance of 120 km and carry a 250 kg payload will be developed. These new rockets can be fired in 44 seconds, have a maximum speed of mach 4.7, rise to an altitude of 40 km before hitting its target at mach 1.8 and can destroy an area of 3.9 km2"

That terminal velocity is way higher than the release speed of the glide bomb most likely < 0.8 mach from aircraft, if it can be harnessed with a glide profile for a 250kg bomb at about 20km altitude? where the speed is even higher than mach 1.8, the range would go even further than 120km.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 22 Dec 2014 09:57

Victor wrote:A bomb precision glide kit called SWAK was displayed at AI 2011.

SWAK was an american product being put up through STK initially, then STK got blacklisted and they chose an Indian partner in the form of Basant aerospace. Swak had a high CEP of 70 meters, too high for a PGM. It needed military grade GPS signal for 10 meter CEP which indicates the INS on board might not have been robust.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 22 Dec 2014 15:50

**Irrelevant post deleted **

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Dec 2014 17:24

Guile Munitions may not have kinetic force and may take a longer time to reach the target. So may not be useful against an agile or mobile targets. But should be interesting to see how fixed "regime targets" can be taken up from 100km distance.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2014 21:58

the latest JSOW versions have a datalink for updates though not sure if it can tackle really mobile targets like moving convoys.

the F-18 has also demonstrated frequent updates to GPS guided in-flight munitions like JDAM to make them capable of acting against mobile target sets.

perhaps brar_w will have more info on that.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Dec 2014 18:44

Gyan wrote:What I was trying to point out by various links that there seem to be 3 programmes which may have been running for atleast 10 years or more. These programmes which may now actually be near completion seem to be:-

1. Strap on PGM "kit" for 100kg, 250kg and 450kg dumb bombs equivalent to JDAM guided by INS-GPS with range of around 50km

2. Laser guided Bomb "kit" with range of 10km and Next Generation Laser guided Bomb kit for (250kg? and) 450kg bombs with range of 50km

3. 1000kg " integrated stealth Glide Bomb" similar to MSOV guided by INS-GPS with perhaps option for seeker and data links with range of 100km+

It started in 90s as we were laying our hands on russian kits. I think correct way to say is as we started understanding these we layed hands on russian kits.

If reports about range of russian equivalent is true we have to be proud of our feat. It is no small thing but comes with the experience of Astra, ABM and such pgms.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Dec 2014 19:48

Singha wrote:the latest JSOW versions have a datalink for updates though not sure if it can tackle really mobile targets like moving convoys.

the F-18 has also demonstrated frequent updates to GPS guided in-flight munitions like JDAM to make them capable of acting against mobile target sets.

perhaps brar_w will have more info on that.

JSOW Data link has the Link-16 architecture iirc. The capability was always planned from the start for the weapon but it took a few years after the first baseline was fielded to be packed into the weapon. It came with the C version and the block III is what they are producing. As far as moving target capability is concerned, not aware of what the requirements were other than that the interest was in the maritime domain. They also have a powered ER version that Raytheon tried to sneak into the OASuW before apparently giving up and shifting to their JV with Kongsberg.

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0508 ... 5_jsow.htm

Also see this : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-356181/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Dec 2014 21:31

JDAM initially came out as a weapon whose GPS co-ordinate to hit was updated once and let go.

but if you read here the latest models can get continuous aimpoint updates...which means they are a pseudo LGB also

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-JDAMPt1.html

Datalink Guided JDAMs

The limitation of the baseline JDAM guidance package is that it was designed to engage fixed targets, the original intent being to fit precision seekers for attacking moving targets. More recent developments in the US suggest that a radical change may be afoot in this area.

The Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE) technology demonstration program is a complex effort which is intended to develop and prove techniques for the engagement of moving ground targets, using cheap munitions and standoff radar targeting techniques. In particular, AMSTE is exploring Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) radar techniques, target position refinement using information from multiple radars on multiple aircraft, and the use of datalinks to guided weapons.

Perhaps the most dramatic outcome of the AMSTE effort was the August 22, 2002 demonstration, in which a JDAM modified with a JTIDS datalink receiver successfully engaged a moving vehicle in a column, using target coordinates produced by a distant E-8 JSTARS and a second radar on an airborne testbed.

The inert JDAM was dropped by an F-16C at 20,000 ft, the target was part of a vehicular column travelling at 30 km/h. Once released, the JDAM acquired the JTIDS signal and continuously updated its aimpoint position as it flew toward the target. DARPA have not disclosed the frequency of updates, but it is likely that a whole JTIDS net was reserved for this purpose.

The AMSTE demonstration is important since it proves the feasibility of continuosly datalinking a moving target's position to a JDAM in flight. The position information could be produced a GMTI radar on a distant aircraft, be it a fighter with a larger radar, an ISR platform or a UAV, or it could be produced by a FLIR/EO/laser targeting system on a fighter or an endurance UAV such as a Predator or a Global Hawk. Once the targeting sensor is measuring the location of the target vehicle, it takes little effort to pump this information out on a datalink radio channel to a bomb in flight.

Handling the target coordinates at the bomb end is perhaps the most challenging aspect of such systems. The guidance software will have to incorporate a Kalman filter which estimates the position of the target vehicle based upon a track history of continuously transmitted coordinates. A prediction of the target's position based on this data is then used to adjust the bomb's aimpoint. Since the JDAM is flying blind toward its target, the quality of the prediction algorithms is critical to success.

Another important aspect of seekerless JDAM engagement of moving targets is the accuracy of the transmitted coordinates, since these are added to the JDAM's guidance error. While many radars support GMTI techniques, very few support the more accurate multi segment Differential Phase Centre Antenna (DPCA) techniques, as these require specific adaptations to the radar antenna design, and feed designs. As a result, the range and bearing accuracy of GMTI radars usually does not match that achieved in SARs. The AMSTE program works around this limitation by fusing GMTI tracks from multiple airborne radars, to yield a best estimate of target position. The target bearing error can be modest, and triangulation of the target using bearings from two or more radars separated by several miles evidently makes the difference.

When the AMSTE derived technique does eventually become operational, it will permit the concurrent engagement of multiple ground vehicles in all weather day/night conditions. Whilst it may not match the accuracy of seeker equipped JDAMs, it makes up for that limitation in much lower weapon costs.

Combining a datalink midcourse system with a cheap autonomous short range seeker, such as a device derived from an anti-armour submunition, of course yields the best of both worlds.

What is clearly evident is that the sanctuary of motion will not last long for evaders of the JDAM.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 24 Dec 2014 00:17

From the reports, it doesn't look like the DRDO glide bomb was GPS guided. Only INS & Seeker were mentioned. I think we are getting single-digit accuracies even with INS! Since we have the G3OM in place, there is a plethora of weapons/targeting options that we have not even scratched the surface of

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Dec 2014 00:55

@ Singha

Northrop Grumman AMSTE Team Scores Direct Hit In China Lake Tests

China Lake - Oct 11, 2002
A Northrop Grumman Corporation team has successfully demonstrated the ability to precisely engage moving surface targets with seekerless weapons at the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Weapons Division here recently.
The team used a modified Raytheon Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) and two Boeing Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to hit targets on the range. The tests were conducted under an Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE) contract sponsored by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and managed by the AFRL.

On Sept. 30, two JDAM weapons simultaneously targeted the second and third vehicles within a five-vehicle convoy on the U.S. Navy's desert test range. Both weapons landed well within their effective circular error of probability.

The JDAMs, consisting of a production tail kit slightly modified to add a Raytheon UHF anti-jam data link coupled to an inert Mk-84 (2000-pound) bomb, were launched at 20,000 feet from an F-14D. The weapons were in flight for less than a minute as they traveled approximately six miles to the target.

Later in the day, a JSOW, launched from an F/A-18D flying at 30,000 feet and approximately 35 miles from the target, scored a direct hit on a remotely controlled M-60 battle tank as it maneuvered on the high desert test range. The weapon was in flight for more than five minutes.

For both tests, an E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) provided the precision, real-time target location and velocity data using bi-laterated ground moving target indicator (GMTI) data from its radar and a fourth-generation AESA F-35 prototype radar in a Global Hawk Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program role and flown aboard a Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Dec 2014 19:41

ARDE is working on a new 500 Kg general purpose bomb that will offer "limited penetration capability". They are exploring the capability of penetration in up to 1.5m RCC. This seems to be an improvement on current HSLD bombs rather than a stand alone bunker buster.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Dec 2014 19:49

Prem Kumar wrote:From the reports, it doesn't look like the DRDO glide bomb was GPS guided. Only INS & Seeker were mentioned. I think we are getting single-digit accuracies even with INS! Since we have the G3OM in place, there is a plethora of weapons/targeting options that we have not even scratched the surface of

Prem ji, there was a tender few months back for high dynamic GAGAN and GPS receiver capable of tracking 4g movement. The specs suggested it might be for the glide bomb.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 27 Dec 2014 05:58

Karan M wrote:Guys interesting stuff about sanctioned programs
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... ence_5.pdf

14
Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (SAAW)
56.58

Karan, there have been few tenders recently for special fuses and safety devices for cluster munition which might be related to it. Not sure if it bears any connection to sensor fused munition in RCI's MLPGM program.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Dec 2014 13:20

What happened to the the A5 test?

member_28911 · Post by **member_28911** » 28 Dec 2014 13:28

abhik wrote:What happened to the the A5 test?

In January depending on PM's schedule.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Dec 2014 17:03

France hopeful of $6-billion Maitri missile project - Economic Times

With the Indo-French $6 billion surface-to-air missile systems project in doldrums, France is hoping that new government's push for "Make in India" will lead to inking of the long delayed deal.

France remains hopeful of signing the deal even though Indian armed forces are sceptical about the missile since indigenously developed Akash is in play.

Titled Maitri, the project for joint development and production between India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and France's MBDA, was initiated in 2007 and a MoU to co-develop the surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) was signed during French President Francois Hollande's visit to India in February last year.

Since then, the situation has changed as Indian Air Force feels that its requirements could be met by indigenous Akash surface-to-air missile weapon system.

Asked about reservations by the Air Force, a top MBDA official in Paris told PTI, "we have written back answering the issues raised by the IAF. We are hopeful that this deal would be inked soon."

The official at MBDA also said that the "Make in India" project is apt for the deal.

He added that while the range of SRSAM will be of 40 km, Akash's range is only 25 km.

Sources at Indian Air Force said that they have nothing against the Maitri project per se but would prefer to use the available Akash missile rather than wait for the Indo-French ones to come.

"The Maitri project can go on but we want the missiles and Akash is serving that purpose," sources said.

Refusing to comment about the Maitri project, sources in DRDO said that the Akash missile is already in play and is based on a similar platform like the Maitri.

However, the French are pushing for Maitri. "SRSAM is part of our strategic dialogue with India and is raised whenever top officials and leaders from both sides meet. We believe that a lot of information has been handed over after the new government has taken over in Delhi," an MBDA official said.

French officials said that both Akash and Maitri can be inducted as the two will improve overall weapon system of India.

MBDA believes that the Maitri will be better for India as it will be "more cost-effective to develop a new missile than to upgrade a missile based on outdated propulsion".

India is working on Akash Mark-II with longer range and MBDA is even calling Maitri as a potential Akash Mark-II.

As per the deal, the Maitri missiles will be produced only in India and the first deliveries will happen three years after the agreement is signed.

India can also export the missile with "MBDA support". The French defence major said Source Codes for Maitri will be delivered to DRDO giving an autonomy to India for guided missiles and seekers.

French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had also written to the Modi government about the project.

The issue was also raised when Drian and the country's Foreign Minister visited India since the Modi government came into power, sources at MBDA said.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 28 Dec 2014 17:23

No need to bankroll the French missile program focus on Akash mk.2. Once developed the French can use the missile with "DRDO support".

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 28 Dec 2014 17:39

The Navy, I believe, is on board with Maitri. They have started searching for alternatives because Maitri project is in Coma. Hopefully DRDL's QRSAM interceptor will replace VL-MICA in naval role as well.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 28 Dec 2014 20:02

SSridhar wrote:France hopeful of $6-billion Maitri missile project - Economic Times
With the Indo-French $6 billion surface-to-air missile systems project in doldrums, France is hoping that new government's push for "Make in India" will lead to inking of the long delayed deal.

France remains hopeful of signing the deal even though Indian armed forces are sceptical about the missile since indigenously developed Akash is in play.

Titled Maitri, the project for joint development and production between India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and France's MBDA, was initiated in 2007 and a MoU to co-develop the surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) was signed during French President Francois Hollande's visit to India in February last year.

Since then, the situation has changed as Indian Air Force feels that its requirements could be met by indigenous Akash surface-to-air missile weapon system.

Asked about reservations by the Air Force, a top MBDA official in Paris told PTI, "we have written back answering the issues raised by the IAF. We are hopeful that this deal would be inked soon."

The official at MBDA also said that the "Make in India" project is apt for the deal. (If Brahmos can get USD 6 Billion orders why not a few Billion for Maitri also?)

He added that while the range of SRSAM will be of 40 km, Akash's range is only 25 km. (Though Akash MK-1 is itself being modernized to reach 35km, but so what SRSAM is better even though Ramjet effective range is considered to be 1.5 to 2 times the missile with conventional solid fueled motor)

Sources at Indian Air Force said that they have nothing against the Maitri project per se but would prefer to use the available Akash missile rather than wait for the Indo-French ones to come.

"The Maitri project can go on but we want the missiles and Akash is serving that purpose," sources said.

Refusing to comment about the Maitri project, sources in DRDO said that the Akash missile is already in play and is based on a similar platform like the Maitri.

However, the French are pushing for Maitri. "SRSAM is part of our strategic dialogue with India and is raised whenever top officials and leaders from both sides meet. We believe that a lot of information has been handed over after the new government has taken over in Delhi," an MBDA official said.

French officials said that both Akash and Maitri can be inducted as the two will improve overall weapon system of India. (Goras can help the darkies even though we have not asked for the help)

MBDA believes that the Maitri will be better for India as it will be "more cost-effective to develop a new missile than to upgrade a missile based on outdated propulsion". (off course Meteor is outdated too, so why France is buying it??)

India is working on Akash Mark-II with longer range and MBDA is even calling Maitri as a potential Akash Mark-II. (MBDA does not want to be left behind in loot India JVs)

As per the deal, the Maitri missiles will be produced only in India and the first deliveries will happen three years after the agreement is signed. (we have it fully ready, just give us the chq, we will keep your money and call it JV)

India can also export the missile with "MBDA support". The French defence major said Source Codes for Maitri will be delivered to DRDO giving an autonomy to India for guided missiles and seekers.

French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had also written to the Modi government about the project.

The issue was also raised when Drian and the country's Foreign Minister visited India since the Modi government came into power, sources at MBDA said.

Note Akash MK-2 will have a range of 45-60km . Also a Ramket missile has 150-200% more effective range compared to brouchure range of conventional missiles due to "longer" burning motor and "faster average speed" to reach the target.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Dec 2014 20:40

Let's make a counter offer of sale of Akash missiles to French. If they want the Rafale to be sold..buy Indian made systems...including Akash, Pinaka and the like.
Also to replace their fleet of medium and light helicopters lets offer the Dhruv and the LUH.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 28 Dec 2014 20:49

uddu wrote:Let's make a counter offer of sale of Akash missiles to French.

Let's learn to walk before we run.

The company is also working with DRDO on Akash Mark 2 missile for the Indian Air Force.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 00738.aspx

The MBDA input is most likely to be in the seeker.

John · Post by **John** » 28 Dec 2014 23:05

Gyan wrote:
Note Akash MK-2 will have a range of 45-60km . Also a Ramket missile has 150-200% more effective range compared to brouchure range of conventional missiles due to "longer" burning motor and "faster average speed" to reach the target.

That is not true unlike lets say Brahmos solid fueled ramjet for Akash has very limited burn time and cannot throttle one of the reasons russians switched to solid propellant for the buk.