Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[rohitvats]

Guys, In all your calculations i thing you are forgetting the gun launched missels of T 72/90. What is thier authorised holdings. IIRC it is 6 rounds / gun.

Considering the numbers of T 90 and 72 in service and on order, it ought to be approx 24000.

adding the numbers from above

52000+32400+24000=108400 ATGMS at minimum

Or have I completely lost it.

Only the T-90 can fire ATGM from it's barrel.

[Pratyush]

Still that ought to make 1850 T 90s, 1850 * 6 = 11100. Only for one load out. That, is still a formidable number.

Still that leaves the IA with a sanctioned ATGM strenght of approx 95000.

[nits]

As per this article US has 25K Javelin Missiles... so are we ordering more Javelin system then what US has or this article is outdated\wrong...

Over 25,000 missiles have been produced and over 6,600 command launch units have have been sold to the US Army and Marine Corps. Javelin has also been selected by Taiwan (60 launchers and 360 missiles), Lithuania, Jordan (30 launchers and 110 missiles), Australia (up to 92 systems and 600 missiles), New Zealand (24 launchers, delivered in June 2006), Norway (90 launchers and 526 missiles, delivery from 2006) and Ireland.

In June 2004, the Czech Republic signed a Letter of Agreement (LOA) with the US government to provide the Javelin system. In November 2004, the United Arab Emirates requested the foreign military sale (FMS) of 100 Javelin launchers and 1,000 missile rounds. In June 2006, Oman requested the FMS of 30 launchers and 250 missiles. In July 2006, Bahrain requested the FMS of 60 launchers and 180 missiles. Contracts for the supply of the missile system to UAE and Oman were placed in July 2008. In October 2008, Taiwan requested the sale of an additional 182 missile and 20 launchers.

Six more nations are considering deployment of the Javelin system. Canada has also been authorised to make such a purchase, but has not pursued the option to date. France is likely to procure 300 missiles and 50 to 60 launchers for €70m.

[rohitvats]

The number of any type of ATGM ordered will depend upon IA requirement. As it is, no number has been shared in public, so far, with respect to the planned Javelin number. And there was report (anonymous source) saying that Javelin is interim purchase.

[Manishw]

IMHO We have just finished with NAG.The next priority should and will be ATGM's.
They are really strategic weapon's and technologies can be adopted from 'Nag' and will be done.Importing ATGM's will be an interim thing only.

[pralay]

IMHO We have just finished with NAG.The next priority should and will be ATGM's.
They are really strategic weapon's and technologies can be adopted from 'Nag' and will be done.Importing ATGM's will be an interim thing only.

Javelin is man-portable ATGM and Nag is vehicle launched ATGM, we need some interim purchase till DRDO perfects the man-portable version of Nag.

Beside filling up the gap the interim import may help developing our own version if we can reverse engineer it

[Manishw]

Javelin is man-portable ATGM and Nag is vehicle launched ATGM

Thank's for the Gyaan Sir.

[darshan]

ToT ==> Do not dream.

[Neshant]

Can you please be more specific in your out-pouring? if the article metions ToT, can you tell me how it is going to completely useless and how this is yet another attempt to rob India. Thanx.

TOT is a useless buzzword which is nothing more than transferring money from India to a foreign country and little else.

An R&D base emerges from doing R&D, not paying some foreign country big bucks to ship something to assemble which is 90% of what is called TOT.

There is no way to download the brains of foreign scientists & engineers who created the product and no amount of money wasting is going to learn anyone anything that way.

Its like the Indian cell phone industry which is just importing and assembling phones from China and sticking their label on it.

Instead of wasting tons of money, the man portable NAG should be put into high gear. Far more was learnt about how to build a combat plane by doing the LCA project (whether it succeeds or not) than 50 years of TOT BS.

But as sure as the sun rises, there will be some guy screaming on here "WE ARE GETTING TOT!!!!!!" as if our scientists and engineers will go to bed dumb and wake up geniuses after a bag of money is handed over to some foreign country.

[Austin]

The report talks about ToT - so domestic production is sure there.

Rohit I doubt US will ever supply complete TOT for Javelin , US does not have a record of Transferring Technology least of all for their latest gadget.

What we end up doing is getting some technology for non critical stuff in Javelin the rest of the blackboxes will be imported and assembled at BDL.

Thats a different debate altogether if TOT is any use and Neshant has made some valid points.

Do these arms industry have any thing like process patent , as an example if US supplies TOT for x system on which they have patent and if we improvise on the x system and make it more capable call it x+1 , do we in return have to pay any royalty or US ends up paying to us if we improvise on the technology ? And is it legal to do it without breaking any patent on that technology ?

[Kailash]

Manishw wrote:
IMHO We have just finished with NAG.The next priority should and will be ATGM's.
They are really strategic weapon's and technologies can be adopted from 'Nag' and will be done.Importing ATGM's will be an interim thing only.


Javelin is man-portable ATGM and Nag is vehicle launched ATGM, we need some interim purchase till DRDO perfects the man-portable version of Nag.

Beside filling up the gap the interim import may help developing our own version if we can reverse engineer it

Considering the strategic nature of these missiles, why isn't the DRDO/DRDL stepping in to object to this acquisition?

Strategic acquisitions are never interim measures. They are always long term - import of Javelins will most definitely kill the man portable Nag.

[ShivaS]

Murali has the best Javlin aka called Doosra.

[rohitvats]

An R&D base emerges from doing R&D, not paying some foreign country big bucks to ship something to assemble which is 90% of what is called TOT.

Instead of wasting tons of money, the man portable NAG should be put into high gear. Far more was learnt about how to build a combat plane by doing the LCA project (whether it succeeds or not) than 50 years of TOT BS.

But as sure as the sun rises, there will be some guy screaming on here "WE ARE GETTING TOT!!!!!!" as if our scientists and engineers will go to bed dumb and wake up geniuses after a bag of money is handed over to some foreign country.

And what does the end-user do till the R&D base in the country is mature to supply him with the requisite system? Sit on his haunches and wait for the DRDO to develop the system? And what happens to his operational capability till then? Or do we expect repeat fo the Milan-2T saga?

As for the Nag Manportable version - any idea what is the timelines for development? what has been asked for and what has been proposed? how long will it take for the R&D complex to master the technology of manportable version of Nag and come out with final version of the system?

Is it as simple a case of scaling down the systems and sub-systems of Nag and come out with infantry version?

Till then, what is wrong with IA going for a foreign missile? If ToT, in whatever form achieved, helps to scale down the missile unit cost, what is wrong with that?

[rohitvats]

Considering the strategic nature of these missiles, why isn't the DRDO/DRDL stepping in to object to this acquisition?

Strategic acquisitions are never interim measures. They are always long term - import of Javelins will most definitely kill the man portable Nag.

Why should they? Do they have an alternate system ready for offer to the IA? If not - then what does one achieve by this?

And by your definition of strategic weapon system - everything in Services inventory is strategic.

And does anyone know the number of Javelins to be imported and overall number required to comment that MANP-ATGM version of Nag will not be required - because the demand is not there?

[rohitvats]

Rohit I doubt US will ever supply complete TOT for Javelin , US does not have a record of Transferring Technology least of all for their latest gadget.

What we end up doing is getting some technology for non critical stuff in Javelin the rest of the blackboxes will be imported and assembled at BDL.

Thats a different debate altogether if TOT is any use and Neshant has made some valid points. <SNIP>

Austin, I'm fully aware of that - the TOT part and what all might eventually come. My contention is domestic development at the expense of preparedness of the Services. Also, any sort of ToT can help in achieving lower per unit cost of Javelin to the country.

Which brings me to the question - AFAIK, DRDO had developed the IIR seeker for Nag. Do they intend to develop the same for the MANP version of the missile? Thanx.

[pralay]

Considering the strategic nature of these missiles, why isn't the DRDO/DRDL stepping in to object to this acquisition?

Strategic acquisitions are never interim measures. They are always long term - import of Javelins will most definitely kill the man portable Nag.

Its quiet unlikely that it will kill MPNag.
if the MPNag can do what javelin can do MoD/army will not have any problem with it.
if the product is good then they will accept it for sure.

[Austin]

Austin, I'm fully aware of that - the TOT part and what all might eventually come. My contention is domestic development at the expense of preparedness of the Services. Also, any sort of ToT can help in achieving lower per unit cost of Javelin to the country.

Domestic development which means a MANPADS version of Nag ? Certainly thats not on the cards or the Lic Prod of Javelin will eventually kill that project

If TOT can help in lower the cost well certainly its welcome , but TOT means helping our domestic industry in bridging the technology gap thats perhaps doubtful

This reminds me of the example of TOT was given by GeorgeJ with regards to transfer of tech for Single Crystal blade for AL-31FP engine , although the Russian has transferred the tech and the necessary tooling and process to build the SC blade for AL-31FP but the catch is we can use it to only develop the blade for AL-31FP engine with the tooling and technology given to just do that.

As a result DRDO cannot develop or use that technology to develop Kaveri SC blade and is in the market looking at Eurojet or Snecma to give yes ( yet another TOT ) technology to develop these blades for Kaveri.

Which brings me to the question - AFAIK, DRDO had developed the IIR seeker for Nag. Do they intend to develop the same for the MANP version of the missile? Thanx.

AFAIK the IIR seeker came from MBDA , we took TOT form them to develop IIR seeker tech for Nag.

[Philip]

If Nag has been a success,why then are we not developing a MANPADS version of it instead of importing yet another ATGM! To me,this is just another indication of the rot that has set in the GOI,where the current dispensation have abdicated all governance of the nation and sacrificed its interests to bands of brigands and robber barons both within and without the country.

[archan]

Murali has the best Javlin aka called Doosra.

I allowed you back in because you show genuine interest in the forum from time to time. I probably shouldn't have. If you keep dropping your knowledge nuggets in perfectly well running threads, you will be permanently banned. Thanks.

[ShivaS]

I probably shouldn't have. If you keep dropping your knowledge nuggets in perfectly well running threads, you will be permanently banned. Thanks.

No not all, If you see the technology, resources and investment already made by India in manufacture (supposed) importing Javlin is yet another way of making money in procurement.

Boss Archan saar I have seen very closely how OFP BMP 2 project was used to milk money. I hate to say this the more I watch the TV the more I am skeptical of this tamasha of buying imported maal.
I will not hence forth post anything in Military forum or Stratforum.

"its useless to excel where none can admire"

You bear some ill will for what ever reason I cant reason with you.
Its a complicted thing

[archan]

I don't know you and hence have no reason to have ill will or good will for you. Just be like normal users and I'd never probably even notice you. You have been given way too much leeway around here (me being a culprit as well). You may have some occult gyan and I don't contest that. However you need to post in simple legible language that most people can make sense of. A one liner with some reference to something in an obscure manner does no good to any thread. You kept doing the same thing in all your previous avatars and you are doing the same now. No can do.

[yantra]

An R&D base emerges from doing R&D, not paying some foreign country big bucks to ship something to assemble which is 90% of what is called TOT.

Instead of wasting tons of money, the man portable NAG should be put into high gear. Far more was learnt about how to build a combat plane by doing the LCA project (whether it succeeds or not) than 50 years of TOT BS.

But as sure as the sun rises, there will be some guy screaming on here "WE ARE GETTING TOT!!!!!!" as if our scientists and engineers will go to bed dumb and wake up geniuses after a bag of money is handed over to some foreign country.

And what does the end-user do till the R&D base in the country is mature to supply him with the requisite system? Sit on his haunches and wait for the DRDO to develop the system? And what happens to his operational capability till then? Or do we expect repeat fo the Milan-2T saga?
.....

Agreed. As a policy, we should come out with a certain percentage allocation to local R&D for every $ that goes out (do not tell me off-set!). It should be given to DRDO to develop an equivalent to what we are purchasing from out-side. Agreed, the total cost will be 1.x times, but it is well worth it!

[Indranil]

Agreed. As a policy, we should come out with a certain percentage allocation to local R&D for every $ that goes out (do not tell me off-set!). It should be given to DRDO to develop an equivalent to what we are purchasing from out-side. Agreed, the total cost will be 1.x times, but it is well worth it!

I dont understand how that will help. Having a sizable annual defense research budget is understandable.

But in your model, lets say the % set aside for DRDO is 10%. Now every foreign acquisition is going to cost 10% dearer. DRDO just gets the fund free. Now even DRDO will not oppose foreign acquisition .

In my opinion every expenditure should be accountable against a target. I don't see a problem with the present set up. The research funds have to go up, and every body knows that.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP> AFAIK the IIR seeker came from MBDA , we took TOT form them to develop IIR seeker tech for Nag.

A technical question - if the seeker tech is imported, what is the level of learning involved for the local R&D set-up? Which brings us to more fundamental question - if DRDO itself has imported the tech for Nag, what in-house expertise does it have develop the seeker and guidance tech for the MANP-ATGM version?

Here I draw analogy to the LCA Programme. ADA+HAL are that much wiser because of what ever they learned on the prorgramme. Tomorrow they can apply that learning in case of another programme - because not only do they know what to do, they also know what not do. Case in point IJT - from drawing board to prototype in 36 months.

In case of Nag, DRDO did not learn how to make the seeker+guidance tech. So, what expertise does it have to come out with miniaturized version of it?

[yantra]

Agreed. As a policy, we should come out with a certain percentage allocation to local R&D for every $ that goes out (do not tell me off-set!). It should be given to DRDO to develop an equivalent to what we are purchasing from out-side. Agreed, the total cost will be 1.x times, but it is well worth it!

I dont understand how that will help. Having a sizable annual defense research budget is understandable.

But in your model, lets say the % set aside for DRDO is 10%. Now every foreign acquisition is going to cost 10% dearer. DRDO just gets the fund free. Now even DRDO will not oppose foreign acquisition .

In my opinion every expenditure should be accountable against a target. I don't see a problem with the present set up. The research funds have to go up, and every body knows that.

I did not say, just give the money to DRDO! I said "should be given to DRDO to develop an equivalent to what we are purchasing from out-side", which is the target. This ensures that we have at least back-up technology to the level of those equipment that we acquire. This will build some R&D base in the areas of our interest and ensure that we won't kill it. We can continue to up our R&D funding as a % of GDP for cutting/bleeding edge technologies.

[Indranil]

I did not say, just give the money to DRDO! I said "should be given to DRDO to develop an equivalent to what we are purchasing from out-side", which is the target. This ensures that we have at least back-up technology to the level of those equipment that we acquire. This will build some R&D base in the areas of our interest and ensure that we won't kill it. We can continue to up our R&D funding as a % of GDP for cutting/bleeding edge technologies.

Sorry, I should have read it better.

[yantra]

No worries, all for the country we love

[Austin]

A technical question - if the seeker tech is imported, what is the level of learning involved for the local R&D set-up? Which brings us to more fundamental question - if DRDO itself has imported the tech for Nag, what in-house expertise does it have develop the seeker and guidance tech for the MANP-ATGM version?

AFAIK DRDO was working on IIR seeker tech for Nag but perhaps it was still not mature/proven and since IIR was the key technology for Nag and a show stopper for its induction they took the tech from MBDA , may be right now DRDO is in a better position to appreciate the technology since it had done the initial ground work and then MBDA came into the picture to fill the gaps.

From what I understand it was a quid quo pro arrangement with MBDA where seeker tech was provided in return they agreed to work on a short range SAM JV Maitri

Here I draw analogy to the LCA Programme. ADA+HAL are that much wiser because of what ever they learned on the prorgramme. Tomorrow they can apply that learning in case of another programme - because not only do they know what to do, they also know what not do. Case in point IJT - from drawing board to prototype in 36 months.

Very true , but in case of Nag DRDO just was practical enough to understand its limitations went for a technology partner and delivered the project to the satisfication of IA , every project need to be taken on its own merits.

In case of Nag, DRDO did not learn how to make the seeker+guidance tech. So, what expertise does it have to come out with miniaturized version of it?

That is something only DRDO can best explain and no one can second speak for them , but as far as MANPADS version goes , I am really not sure if DRDO was seriously interested in MANPADS version ( beyond the BRF wish list I have never seen any DRDO interest in this ) perhaps they were just preoccupied with delivering the existing version to IA satisfication and developing Heli Nag.

Now that we have a Javelin deal with perhaps Lic production rolling the incentive to develop a manpads version may be much lower , they can focus on high end longer range with MMW seeker version for Nag.

[koti]

Correction everyone.
MANPADS exclusively deals with Anti-Aircraft systems.

Referring to Anti-Tank systems as MANPADS may cause unnecessary confusion.

[darshan]

What we end up doing is getting some technology for non critical stuff in Javelin the rest of the blackboxes will be imported and assembled at BDL.

Bingo!

No not all, If you see the technology, resources and investment already made by India in manufacture (supposed) importing Javlin is yet another way of making money in procurement.

Bingo!

Man portable ATGMs are overrated and a money waster.

[rohitvats]

No not all, If you see the technology, resources and investment already made by India in manufacture (supposed) importing Javlin is yet another way of making money in procurement.

Bingo!

Man portable ATGMs are overrated and a money waster.

And you arrived at this conclusion after what experience? Thanx.

[Pratyush]

What we end up doing is getting some technology for non critical stuff in Javelin the rest of the blackboxes will be imported and assembled at BDL.

Bingo!

No not all, If you see the technology, resources and investment already made by India in manufacture (supposed) importing Javlin is yet another way of making money in procurement.

Bingo!

Man portable ATGMs are overrated and a money waster.

Obviously, you have no clue to what Egyptians did to the Isreal's tank forces in the 73 war. For you to have made this statememt.

MP ATGM are extreamly important element in modern land warfare. The grouse of some people in this thread (At least mine) with acquiring the Javline. Is that the domestic development of the comparable product will not happen.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Very true , but in case of Nag DRDO just was practical enough to understand its limitations went for a technology partner and delivered the project to the satisfication of IA , every project need to be taken on its own merits.

<SNIP>

That is something only DRDO can best explain and no one can second speak for them , but as far as MANPADS version goes , I am really not sure if DRDO was seriously interested in MANPADS version ( beyond the BRF wish list I have never seen any DRDO interest in this ) perhaps they were just preoccupied with delivering the existing version to IA satisfication and developing Heli Nag. <SNIP>

So, we don't know what the DRDO is bringing to the table - it will all depend on what they've learned (or not) from the Nag development. IMO, it is premature to cry about domestic production/project of Manportable version when we don't even know what is being proposed and under what timelines.

[P Chitkara]

Does anyone have any idea how many LACMs are we palnning to induct? These include Brahmos and Nirbhay. Any ballpark figure that anyone may have heard of?

These assume great importance in context of China.

[koti]

The rough estimate is India would be having some 1000 missiles of Brahmos family alone eventually.

The following source puts the number at 800.

But I doubt any fund allocations for the same have been done as it would be costing some 2 Billion Dollars and there was no info available on any such order.
Nonetheless, I felt the source credible enough.

http://brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=115

[Karan M]

And what does the end-user do till the R&D base in the country is mature to supply him with the requisite system? Sit on his haunches and wait for the DRDO to develop the system? And what happens to his operational capability till then? Or do we expect repeat fo the Milan-2T saga?

As for the Nag Manportable version - any idea what is the timelines for development? what has been asked for and what has been proposed? how long will it take for the R&D complex to master the technology of manportable version of Nag and come out with final version of the system?

Is it as simple a case of scaling down the systems and sub-systems of Nag and come out with infantry version?

Till then, what is wrong with IA going for a foreign missile? If ToT, in whatever form achieved, helps to scale down the missile unit cost, what is wrong with that?

What exactly is the Milan 2T saga?

No clear indication that an Manportable Nag is in the works. A CLGM is under development, but it may be laser guided and not IIR.

Incidentally, Nag as proposed by DRDL under IGMP was laser guided, but changed to IIR to meet "best of class" requirements as projected by user services, namely the Army.

Local assembly and manufacture progressively using local material does bring down the cost of the missile, but needs to be considered against the upfront costs of paying for the license, plus infrastructure investment. These total cost breakdowns are rarely available, but TOT does assist in local maintenance and support for the equipment. Even if India makes 40-50% of the missile locally, thats that amount of kit locally available.

As of 2003 India was in talks to export the Milan, on account of the Indian mfd missile being significantly cheaper than the ones made at MBDA. The 2T deal was partly struck in that backdrop.

[rohitvats]

What exactly is the Milan 2T saga?

That the IA was forced by the MOD to purchase Milan-2T after representation by the BDL Staff Union - this when the Milan-2T had failed to meet the GSQR in terms of range and IA had rejected it. This after DRDO had said that it will improve the range of the Milan-2T.

Incidentally, Nag as proposed by DRDL under IGMP was laser guided, but changed to IIR to meet "best of class" requirements as projected by user services, namely the Army.

Was this supposed to be 2nd gen (operator lases - missile rides the beam) or a 3rd gen F&F beam rider like Hellfire?

As of 2003 India was in talks to export the Milan, on account of the Indian mfd missile being significantly cheaper than the ones made at MBDA. The 2T deal was partly struck in that backdrop.

As per the CAG Report, the license was for production till 2012 and for the numbers required by the IA. The argument advanced by BDL Staff Union was that the expertise for production of 2T would be lost if IA did not purchase the missile. Then, where does this export figure come from? Thanx.

[Rahul M]

3rd gen.

[Karan M]

That the IA was forced by the MOD to purchase Milan-2T after representation by the BDL Staff Union - this when the Milan-2T had failed to meet the GSQR in terms of range and IA had rejected it. This after DRDO had said that it will improve the range of the Milan-2T.

I'd take what the CAG says as being one part of the picture, not the overall. That's usually the case with their reports, where they end up missing some of the details. A famous example being their oft quoted, why tank ammunition import was required in 1999, when the war was fought in the mountains, without tanks. It entirely escaped their attention that the conflict may have extended elsewhere.

Fact is that after Pak acquired the T-80UD, there was a huge brouhaha over how, overnight the IA's ATGM inventory was obsolete. A fair bit of it was hype.

The issue became more critical once it became known that Pak was upgrading even its Type59's to the Al Zarrar standard (re-manufacturing) with ERA. The simplest option was to ask for upgraded versions of the ATGMs in service already, namely the Milan 2 and Konkurs.

Hence, the requirements for the Milan2T and the Konkurs-M. Why two differing classes of missiles, because the latter is as memory serves me, heavier and meant for mainly the BMPs, whereas Milan firing posts are given to infantry and are even on jeeps.

The French/MBDA instead offered us a stake in the Trigat program (which program got cancelled AFAIK) as a follow on to the Milan 2T as well.

This was the immediate impetus for the Milan 2T acquisition. Get a tandem warhead equipped missile in service as urgently as possible

Incidentally, another urgent purchase which was pushed through was the Kornet-E, especially for troops who'd fight in the mountains, as experience at Kargil suggested that wire guided missiles could snag on rocks and terrain.

Was this supposed to be 2nd gen (operator lases - missile rides the beam) or a 3rd gen F&F beam rider like Hellfire?

2nd Gen, per your definition noted above.
The program was known as ATM-3. It was based on technology DRDL at the time was familiar with & was lower risk in terms of time, development and cost. The IA asked for F&F based on projected operational needs and best in class requirements. While IIR is more survivable (F&F) it has brought a lot of complexity and expense to the missile. The US, and many other nations continue to use guided missiles (SACLOS TOW2A now in production replaces the wire with RF guidance) and such rounds are usually cheaper & hence fielded in far more number.

As per the CAG Report, the license was for production till 2012 and for the numbers required by the IA. The argument advanced by BDL Staff Union was that the expertise for production of 2T would be lost if IA did not purchase the missile. Then, where does this export figure come from? Thanx.

The export I was speaking of, was for the Milan 2 itself. BDL was in talks with several African nations, which found the basic missile very useful for their needs but were put off by the high price of the missile per launcher, as given by MBDA. So BDL was in talks with MBDA to export the Milan 2, and then work its way upto the Milan 2T.

These talks may have stalled but may end up coming up again, as MBDA seems to have a new focus on India, from recent press releases and what not.

BDL also worked with El-op of Israel to upgrade the launcher with new generation Thermals and was in talks to export the missiles.

The Army may have changed its requirements later on & the BDL union stepped in as a line may have been affected (BDL operates multiple lines of assembly for different missiles) but the operational requirement for the Milan 2T was driven firmly by its tandem warhead, which is critical to punch through ERA.

Now, an interesting sidetopic - as to why we did not RE these missiles and start making our own variants as the Chinese tend to do (their wire guided variants though are still behind worldwide standards in terms of weight/efficiency). It was the contract. Both the French and Russians (especially the French) had iron clad contracts with us which even specified the amount of material we could indigenize and what we could and could not do. As such, BDL & partners have made modifications to the equipment, got own simulators, upgraded some of the sub-assemblies, but have been chary of making wholesale new missiles based on the earlier design. They do not have the legal clearance to do so, and GOI, adheres to the contractual obligation. Some limited modifications are spoken of though, perhaps new deals have been worked out.

[Rahul M]

karan ji, I'm fairly sure it was billed as an F&F missile which puts it in 3rd gen. I might check back to the old 80's articles if you want.