Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Aug 2009 06:06

Avarachan,

Welcome. I don't know if this information can go into BR missile section. First of all we don't host articles regarding plans of Indian Armed forces primarily because we don't want to come across as open source intelligence source on our defense. We don't want to assimilate information from various sources, filter and process them into single coherent articles.

Think about it: confusion can help sometimes; folks who rely on open source intelligence will have to do more work. Why should we make their work easy. I just don't want confusion to enter into minds of BRFites here. So in some spread posts I will occasionally throw as many tid bits as I know of.

Secondly, BR generally provides information only on systems inducted by our forces. Let these products be inducted and we will update/create articles on each system accordingly.

Besides this I will leave our missile man Arun_S to answer your query since he is the one who manages our missile and space section.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 24 Aug 2009 06:10

I think the first order was for AF and the one now is for army

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Aug 2009 06:11

But they are for SPYDER SR since both IAF and IA were expecting Trishul and when it failed they wanted a replacement. SPYDER SR is that replacement in the LLQRM category.

And then for MR SAM both will get the Land based version of DRDO-IAI Barak-8. In this way we will have commonality and low maintenance cost over life cycle. Remember this is new approach of Indian Armed forces and MoD.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Aug 2009 07:34

While the Spyder SR sam is indeed great news to sharpening the SHORAD claws of the IA & IAF and in combo with the Akash and the Barak 8 with the PAD & AAD taking care of the top tier AD it will prove to be a very solid and formidable defense umbrella, I forecaste bandars, solahs and 7, 10, 11, 17 ityadi series falling like flies

Now to the more paranoid part with this deal we now have Phalcon, Green Pine, Spyder SR, Barak NG/8 (IAF & IN), UAV systems,etc = All Israeli this I think is a precarious situation and we must be careful to ensure that we are able to take care of these systems with minimal "external" assistance for in the words of the ye ol' Governor "We have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies - only permanent interest"

Although this is one of em easier said than done scenarios the impetus must absolutely be on absorbing key technologies and increasing out tech base (hopefully it will turn out quite unlike the SC blades

)
nuff said!

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 24 Aug 2009 09:37

Sumeet Sir: thanks for the clarifications.

A question on LR-SAM: there is a bit of ambiguity in this term. In many press releases about Barak-8, we see the term "MR-SAM/LR-SAM" as if they are one and the same. Barak-8 with a range of 70KM is not an LR-SAM IMO. LR-SAM would have a range of 150 - 200KM or perhaps even more - i.e. the S-300 and S-400 variety.

Do you happen to know what is our plan for LR-SAM, if we have one? Is it going to be AAD? I dont know the range of AAD - in Wikipedia, the range is not specified but the ceiling is mentioned to be 30 KM.

Are there plans to develop an air-defense version of AAD?

TIA.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Aug 2009 09:46

Andy,

DRDO is also developing SR SAM called Maitri with MBDA. That is more of a competitor with SPYDER SR and may be AKASH. Don't know much details though. So most of this stuff will be diversified between Israel and France. The MFR that powers ballistic missile defense system of India is Master A radar from Thales. LRTR is indigenized Green Pine.

So most of the stuff is JV. And we can indigenize critical technologies that are foreign in these products as time passes by. But for now we want to get them inducted into our services ASAP. Indigenization will happen over time. If memory serves me well this was confirmed by VK Saraswat in one of his interview. I will try to dig up proof for this.

So plan is there for everything.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 24 Aug 2009 09:49

Prem ji.. The confusion between LR/ MR/ SR ityaadi is due to different perceptions of which category a particular range falls into. What is just MR for our Russi bhais is LR for other bhais/ behens. Having said that it is my belief that in India, different organizations have different horse for the same course. Eg: DRDO says Akash is MR, but Armed Forces operational envelope puts it in high end of SR. Add to this the confusion dished out by DDMs, as Sumeet sir pointed out.

BR's ultimate manzil should not be acronym sorting but discussing that systems cover the whole AD bubble from <1km to >200km in range for Hawai Udaans and all classes of Door Phekus.

Regards,
Kiran

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Aug 2009 10:03

Prem you are welcome.

Please go through this interview taken in early 2007 late 2006 period.

Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat
Chief Controller of Research and Development, India’s DRDO

Known in India as the father of the anti-ballistic air defense missile system, Vijay Kumar Saraswat began his career at the state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) with the development of India’s first liquid-propulsion engine for the Prithvi missile.

Saraswat, who specializes in rocket propulsion, missile technologies, and project and technology management, today is the DRDO’s chief controller for research and development. His future assignments include development of India’s anti-ballistic missile systems, radars, C4I systems and integration of battle management resources into a national authority. For his outstanding contribution to India, Saraswat was conferred with the Padma Shri Award, the country’s fourth-highest civilian award, in 1998.

Q. Please describe the homegrown ballistic missile defense system. How many missiles will it have for different layers of threats?

A. Our missile configuration is a three-layered missile defense configuration. We are planning to engage ballistic missiles at the exo-atmospheric layer, i.e., the layer where it enters the atmosphere, and the endo-atmospheric layer, where there is a thermally sensitive atmospheric layer. This configuration gives us the best probability of killing a ballistic missile coming to us. To increase hit probability, we can plan to launch two to three missiles each for exo- and endo-atmospheric.

The missile that demonstrates our capability to intercept ballistic missiles at exo-atmospheric altitudes is called PAD. It is a two-stage missile. The first stage is liquid, and the second is a solid rocket motor with many additional features, which are leading to an interception or engaging the ballistic missiles. For example, it has seeker guidance, divert thruster which can generate a lateral acceleration at more than 5 Gs at 50 kilometers altitude.

Q. How many missiles in the system?
A. There are two layers. At each battery there is a multiple launcher with multiple missiles.

Q. What is the configuration of BMD?
A. In a typical battery, you have the long-range radars, missile launchers, mission control center and other ground systems.

The complete network of radars, launch batteries, missile control centers, launch control centers. These are geographically distributed and are connected to a very potent secure communications network.

The radar is looking at a particular elevation and detects incoming ballistic missiles. This information is sent to the mission control center(MCC), which then decides whether it is a missile interceptor or a satellite or any other projectile, and it does target classification within a few seconds. When the target is classified, the MCC also calculates where the impact point of the target is likely to be and where it is going to fall.

After the target is classified, the MCC also finds out the trajectory profile and the speed it is going to travel. Based on that, it assigns a target to a particular battery. This is called target assignment.

Once the target is assigned, the data goes to a particular battery, then control goes to the launch control center (LCC). LCC keeps on getting data from radar directly, and then it decides when to launch the interceptor. This is decided based on the data received from radar, on the speed of target, altitude, flight path. A ground guidance computation is done. It's a very complex computation from ground computation when to launch the interceptor. All this is done in an autonomous fashion.

Q. Can you tell me the timeframe?
A. For the 600-kilometer class of system, if a radar has spotted a target, the interceptor will be launched within about 180 seconds. It will be different for 200-kilometer and 300-kilometer missiles.

Q. What is the speed of the air defense missile?
A. It is between 4.5 and 5 Mach. The same system has the capability to engage 300-kilometer to 2,000-kilometer classes of ballistic missiles.

Q. How efficient is it?
A. Depending upon the area of threat, radars are deployed in that direction. We deploy the radar in such a way that a threat coming from that direction is detected. Once the target missile is detected at a point, a number of batteries are deployed. If a missile is passing through the zone of influence of one battery, that battery will be activated.

Q. Is this Swordfish radar?
A. No, it is Long-Range Tracking Radar. It has the capability to track 200 targets at a range of about 600 kilometers.

It can track the target and the interceptor also. So in this radar, we developed the complete software for doing the tracking and engagement of ballistic missiles.

Complete software for signal processing transmitter receiver modules, central processing units and complete ground segment — like cooling units, power supplies and the communication network — have been indigenously developed and integrated. Today, we have full capability to manufacture this radar in our country.

Q. How many radars have you developed in this class? When did this development begin?
A. We started working on this in late 1999, beginning of 2000, and we completed it in 2004. It has taken almost five years. We had also developed radar for the endo-atmospheric layer. It is called multifunction control radar. This is also a phased array radar. It also has the capability to beat the interceptor guidance, if required.

Q. How does the MCC work?
A. MCC is completely a software-intensive system for BMD, and this works on about 10 computers simultaneously. It receives information about the target from different sources. It could be ground-based radars, satellites or our own technical intelligence system. MCC is connected to all the elements of the weapon system through a wide area communication network. It does target classification, target assignment and kill assessment.

In addition, planning for deployment of radar and other weapon system elements is also done by MCC. It can also simulate all the types of track profiles and also simulates the interception using our interceptors, and then select whether interception will take place or not. It can also indicate how many missiles should be launched to intercept an incoming threat to give an assured kill probability. It acts as a decision support system for the commander.

Q. What is LCC?
A. It is the basic hub for launch of the interceptor. After a target has been assigned to a particular battery, LCC starts computing when to launch the interceptor based upon the information received from the radars, about the target. It carries out the checking of the health of the missile. It prepares the missile for launch in real time, carries out ground guidance computation.

After an interceptor is launched, the interceptor is provided information about the target through an uplink. The target real time data is transmitted through a very robust communication network.

Q. When will the BMD testing be complete?
A. It will take more than three years to complete our developmental activities.

Q. What is Phase II?
A. The same missile interceptors cannot cover all threats. Threat targets of longer ranges — 2,000 kilometers — will make our phase-II development.

During Phase I: Endo-atmospheric interceptor is AAD. This interceptor will engage targets at 25 kilometers. AAD is superior in terms of coverage area compared to PAC-3, which is 15 kilometers. You can see the difference. AAD’s equivalent is the Israeli Arrow, which intercepts at 40 kilometers. PAD is 50 to 80 kilometers. America is building a missile, THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — that intercepts out to 120 kilometers, but it is still in development. However, a lot of failures have taken place during THAAD development.

Q. How many missile batteries would you deploy?
A. Nobody will give information on how many and where we will deploy them.

Q. Who will be the production agency for this?
A. We have participation of 30 private and public industries for various subsystems of this missile and weapon system.

Q. Who will build the radar eventually?
A. Radar will be made by a consortium of Bharat Electronics and many other private industries, facilitating private-public partnership, with DRDO as technology giver.

Q. And what about missiles?
A. Missiles and subsystems are also being made by many private industries. It could be government-owned Bharat Dynamics Ltd. — the preferred agency — or any other agency.

Q. What is involved in the development of a missile system?
A. A lot of different technologies are involved. For example, take the PAD missile. We started developing in the year 2000, and in six to seven years we have launched the missiles — whereas the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program started in 1983 and the first launch of Prithvi was in 1988, Agni in 1989, and we have developed other missiles like Akash and Nag also. One needs to work on various technologies for different systems in propulsion, control, guidance, aerodynamics, structures, power systems, launchers and other supporting ground systems.

Q. What does this mean?
A. We have reached the stage of technology development where we have technical maturity and technological qualification leading to subsystem production at identified production agencies. This is a very long, long process.

Q. What is the effect of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)?
A. When we launched Prithvi and Agni, it had affected the launch of all the missiles and subsystems. The MTCR was a major reason for delay in the 1990s in the development of our missiles.

Q. How did you overcome?
A. We launched a program called “Combating MTCR,” and because of that program, we developed all the unavailable materials, components and subsystems indigenously.

When you do such work, you have to depend on your country’s industries and scientific institutions. When the scientific institutions give support but industries lack the technological base to support this type of program, then we have to develop required integrated circuits, etc. We have to have set up like that and we have to spend money, and it takes time. That way, development of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program, we were involved in development of integrated circuits, material, irradiating elements. We spent a lot of money and effort doing that.

In 1996, the first Prithvi system was delivered. Despite MTCR, Agni-1 and -2 have been done. Akash flight trials were conducted successfully. The Nag imaging infrared seeker has been built. So it is to the credit of the Indian scientific community.

Now, the Akash air defense system is going to lead to production because this year, we are going for induction of Akash after a few user trials.

Q. What about the Nag anti-tank missile?
A. This year, we are going to conduct the user trials of Nag.

Q. What about the Trishul quick-reaction missile?
A. Development is completed. We are looking for more variants.

Q. What about the Dhanush ship-launched missile and Astra beyond-visual-range missile?
A. Dhanush we have already completed successfully. Astra is an air-to-air beyond-visual-range missile. Ballistic trials of the missile have been completed. Now, we are on to control and guidance flight-trial mode. We expect that by June, control guidance flights will commence. Now it is going per schedule and all the various technological requirements of Astra are being met.

Q. What are the spinoffs?
A. Once Phase-II interceptors are developed, these can be used as long-range interceptors of aircraft at ranges of 120 kilometers.

You see the question which you asked that it has taken 20 years to develop. Now you see it is not taking more than 5 years - 6 years. Even Americans also take time. Their missile program with industrial infrastructure, the cost is very high and they take six to seven years before a missile is launched. This is also time taken for development of PAD and AAD.

By Vivek Raghuvanshi in New Delhi.

So people there you have LR SAM to intercept 100+ kms.

LLQRM/SHORAD/SR SAM -- SPYDER SR range less than 1km to 15 kms. [Possible replacement by DRDO-MBDA Maitri SAM.]
Akash [Lower MR SAM]-- Upto 30 kms.
Barak-8 Land based MR SAM -- Upto 70 kms.
PAD -- Exoatmosphere ballistic missile interception
AAD -- Endoatmospere ballistic missile interception
AAD phase 2 LR SAM -- Upto 120 kms range aircraft interception.

So by 2017-20 expect a very strong AAD network. I hope I have cleared doubts about our Air Defense System plan.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Aug 2009 10:13

Folks Maitri may not be happening

Junked: France joint missile plan

A senior defence ministry source, when asked today about the defence deals that figured in discussions during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris, said that a $500-million (Rs 2,430 crore) proposal from European missile maker MDBA to jointly produce low-level quick reaction missiles (LLQRM) — or short-range surface-to-air missiles (SR-SAMs) — was “not happening”.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Aug 2009 10:27

thats fine. we are still in good shape.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 24 Aug 2009 10:31

Sumeet, thank you for bringing some clarity for desis like myself. One question - for maintaining an effective air defense for our cities/assets it means that there will be a whole bunch of SPYDER SR, Akash, Barak 8, PAAD, AAD, AAD phase 2 SAMs required!!!
Two things - one, how will each talk to the other. Seems like a herculean task to network all the systems for an effective and RIGHT response to an emerging threat. Two, even one battery of each missile system along with the complementary radar,etc would mean a huge chunk of vehicles/materials on ground for each city/asset

? Am I thinking right or is there some gap in what I know. Apologies if it is a newbie doubt.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 24 Aug 2009 10:45

with SPYDER's coming what will be the fate of Akash?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Aug 2009 11:00

Massive air-to-air and air defense missiles modernization of the Indian Air Force
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/detailin ... an%20Force
I am not too sure about this website, but here is an interview given by the Air Chief.

What is the present situation on replacement of obsolete Soviet-origin surface-to-air missiles (Pechora and Osa-AKMs) with new generation, quick reaction and longer-range missiles? In what time frame can the IAF bring about paradigm change in air defense systems to secure its airbases and other vital assets?
Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik: IAF is in the process if replacement of Surface-to-air Guided Weapon System (SAGW).Medium Range Surface to Air Missile Systems (MRSAM) are planned to replace the ageing Pechora fleet. These are new generation medium range missile system with better kill envelop, range up to 70 km and elevation coverage up to 18 km. Its induction will commence in the beginning of 2012.Prcurement of Short Range Surface to Air Missile System (SRSAM) is also planned to replace the OSA-AK system. This new generation Low Level Quick Reaction Missile System (LLQRM) would be developed by DRDO jointly with other agencies. This system is currently under development and is likely to be inducted into the service in 2011.By2022, all old SAGW assets would be replaced by state of the art new generation SAGW systems.

He talks of everything but Akash. Gurus can shed more light on the stance of IAF.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 24 Aug 2009 13:05

Why do we need different Air defence systems at various locations...

Massive air-to-air and air defense missiles modernization of the Indian Air Force
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/detailin ... an%20Force

I mean we could just have one air defence systems(includes SRSAM, MRSAM, LRSAM) at our borders ...
and this should take of care of any missile that enters Indian air space...

Correct me if I am wrong...IAF will be using the SAM's to protect our air bases at various locations right ?
This could be avoided if we have a effective SAM at our borders...

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 24 Aug 2009 13:24

with SPYDER's coming what will be the fate of Akash?

Limited numbers. Just to keep the internal design houses going. End of day, protection of Indian airspace matters more than saving an Indian missile (or so they say..)

Since we have the money to buy, why shouldn't everyone have a share? Israelis, Army/Air-force persons, middlemen, the CBI. Everyone loots the surplus on conducting a corrupt deal. We need better leadership - both political and scientific - if anything has to change.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 24 Aug 2009 16:37

Mahesh_R wrote:Why do we need different Air defence systems at various locations...

Massive air-to-air and air defense missiles modernization of the Indian Air Force
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/detailin ... an%20Force
I mean we could just have one air defence systems(includes SRSAM, MRSAM, LRSAM) at our borders ...
and this should take of care of any missile that enters Indian air space...

Correct me if I am wrong...IAF will be using the SAM's to protect our air bases at various locations right ?
This could be avoided if we have a effective SAM at our borders...

I feel you do not realise the number of assets needed to achieve the bolded part. Former USSR had one of the densest SAM network (here I am talking about density - number of SAMs covering X sq Km, and not total number of assets). In spite of that interceptors were needed for CAP (Combat Air Patrol). And inpite of all this transgressions of airspace did occur; ala U-2, etc (not to mention they maintained a separate Armed Force called Voyska PVO, for just defending Soviet airspace).

So even for size of India, it is unsustainable to deploy SAMs near border. Let us assume that we do what you say. What then when the intruders (aircraft/ missile) are able to breach this thin line at the border? Hence, the need for last ditch SR measures at possible targets.

SAM based Air Defense is always in layers or tiers. This complemented by fighter CAP.

Ballistic missiles alter the equation in a totally different direction. While targeting range is the yardstick for Air Defense, BMD capability is measured more along the interception speed and altitude. If an IRBM is launched, say from Pak, its trajectory does not enter Indian airspace when it is more or less in its descent phase. When it does, depending on the target, it can be in Central india and not at the border (unless it is SRBM).

John · Post by **John** » 24 Aug 2009 19:54

Sumeet wrote:John,

Co development of Land based Medium range SAM system is a sure thing. Indian and Israeli Navies will use Naval Barak-8 System. Its land based version is chosen to be Indian's land based forces future MR SAM.

Dr. Prahalad has already clarified that. Here is IAI Press Release. Also, you said IAI Press release is contradicting it, please show me that release.

I am incorrect actually its Rafael not IAI and according to Haaretz Business section Rafael has not yet acknowledged the deal yet, they have not refuted it either so it adds some credibility to it. So we will have wait till we got some press release from them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Aug 2009 21:52

Sumeet, Please work on a holistic "Future Surface to Air missile systems for IAF" article using all the above quotes. I think the topic deserves addressing. As you seem to have all the sources and more than that an iunderstanding of it, you would be the right person to do it. Besides N^3 is looking for SRR material. Say in six weeks for first draft?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 24 Aug 2009 23:21

Sumeet wrote:So people there you have LR SAM to intercept 100+ kms.

LLQRM/SHORAD/SR SAM -- SPYDER SR range less than 1km to 15 kms. [Possible replacement by DRDO-MBDA Maitri SAM.]
Akash [Lower MR SAM]-- Upto 30 kms.
Barak-8 Land based MR SAM -- Upto 70 kms.
PAD -- Exoatmosphere ballistic missile interception
AAD -- Endoatmospere ballistic missile interception
AAD phase 2 LR SAM -- Upto 120 kms range aircraft interception.

So by 2017-20 expect a very strong AAD network. I hope I have cleared doubts about our Air Defense System plan.

I think a lot of people get confused by quoted ranges e.g. if AAD phase 2 can intercept at 120km, why do we need SYPDER? AAD test intercepted at 25km; but can it also intercept at tree top height? I think the reason is the lower engagement range and time for response. But may be someone can clarify.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Aug 2009 23:30

AAD is a silver bullet of sorts, you need something cheaper for the duck-shooter role.

one thing people miss while discussing SAMs, a variety of SAMs in your AD is actually an advantage, it's a force multiplier of sorts.
since the enemy would have to carry CMs for each type of SAM and that translates into drastically reduced combat effectiveness.

John · Post by **John** » 24 Aug 2009 23:46

abhiti wrote:I think a lot of people get confused by quoted ranges e.g. if AAD phase 2 can intercept at 120km, why do we need SYPDER? AAD test intercepted at 25km; but can it also intercept at tree top height? I think the reason is the lower engagement range and time for response. But may be someone can clarify.

IMO you can't categorize SAM by just their engagement range but also by price. Russians for example procured Buk (SA-11/17) even though they had S-300. Primarily cause former was lot cheaper to deploy and procure, SPYDER MR fits in the same category: 360 degree coverage, Python/Derby are fairly cheap to produce and can be integrated into exsisting radar systems.

So we might have muliple systems with overlapping ranges simply to maitain the #s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2009 23:58

Rahul M wrote:AAD is a silver bullet of sorts, you need something cheaper for the duck-shooter role.

one thing people miss while discussing SAMs, a variety of SAMs in your AD is actually an advantage, it's a force multiplier of sorts.
since the enemy would have to carry CMs for each type of SAM and that translates into drastically reduced combat effectiveness.

I doubt more means better , you end up with logistics problem and perhaps non-compatible systems , having a single for each type i.e. Medium , Short , Long range is fine , but these days they just build a modular system which increases in range or using fatter booster like Aster-15 and 30.

I doubt Barak-8 will be any cheaper than AAD , so having two system which can do the same job does not make much sense , much like US does not operate PAC-3 and Aster or Russia does something similar.

I suspect either AAD or Barak-8 will eventually get the kick much like Akash , most likely the former as armed forces seems to be committed to Barak-8 while AAD keeps getting successful hits.

Well some future CDS might just proclaim that Barak-8 is the missile that the messiah has promised , while the SDRE AAD is for the faithless , the Yehudi eventually found their promised land

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 25 Aug 2009 04:04

Austin,

AAD and Barak are different. Barak-8 cannot do AAD's work. I will elaborate on this later with proof directly from IAI.

Ramana,

I will take upon the task of writing that article. 6 weeks is a good time frame for first draft. thanks for providing this opportunity.

John · Post by **John** » 25 Aug 2009 04:50

AAD is bigger missile than Barak-8 1.2 tons vs ~ 400 kg and has much higher ceiling, IMO AAD 1/2 will likely be used for BMD and for engaging high value enemy assets such as AWACS etc. Barak-8 has limited BMD capability (similar to Aster 30) but MRSAM is supposed to have some improvements in that category.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2009 09:24

AAD and Barak-8 might fill the big and small missile roles of S-400 family. would be good to have a unified TELAR and radar/C3I setup to fold both in.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 25 Aug 2009 09:41

How well does Javelin missile fit in with Indian army?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 25 Aug 2009 10:11

DELETED

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2009 10:20

John wrote:AAD is bigger missile than Barak-8 1.2 tons vs ~ 400 kg and has much higher ceiling, IMO AAD 1/2 will likely be used for BMD and for engaging high value enemy assets such as AWACS etc. Barak-8 has limited BMD capability (similar to Aster 30) but MRSAM is supposed to have some improvements in that category.

Bigger does not necessarily means better , AAD might be bigger and heavier because of use of heavier electronic , materials , solid fuels etc , while Barak-8 can achieve the same using advanced lighter electronics, materials and high energy solid fuel.

For eg the S-400 9M96M and 9M96M1 weighs ~ 450 kg but has higher range and ARH/HTK capability compared to older S-300PMU1 which weighs ~ 1.4 T which uses TVM.

The range of AAD ( > 100 Km ) nicely over laps with the extended range of airforce Barak-LR ( ~ 120 km ) , the rest is import lobby.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 25 Aug 2009 10:47

Whats this Airforce Barak-LR 120 Km SAM. From where did this come from?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Aug 2009 11:05

I doubt more means better , you end up with logistics problem and perhaps non-compatible systems , having a single for each type i.e. Medium , Short , Long range is fine , but these days they just build a modular system which increases in range or using fatter booster like Aster-15 and 30.

err, what is meant by compatibility in such cases ??
each system is designed to be independently operated. if you mean co-ordination that was achieved by communication, I'm talking of when this idea started, in the 50's and 60's. there was no datalink back then. nowadays, you'll need secure DLs to surveillance radars and AEW&C, that's all.

if you take western examples you'll not find this strategy.
NATO et al depended primarily on interceptors for air defence, they never took the SAM idea to its optimum.

it's the soviets who had SAMs as one of the prime pieces of their defensive posture, and it was they who pushed the doctrine to its limit.
why do you think they developed and deployed such a wide variety of SAMs ?

of course such a doctrine will be logistics heavy but logistics is the least of your problems for a AD net deployed semi-permanently.

to appreciate the effectiveness of a multi-type SAM environment please go through the effectiveness of egyptian air defences (using soviet systems) in the initial part of the '73 war.
(air cover became ineffective when the egyptians failed to hold on to their advantage on ground)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Aug 2009 11:14

p.s. israel already uses the arrow family in roles equivalent to that of AAD, I doubt they will simply create another missile of the same class. (saying this as specs of barak-8 are still hazy)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2009 11:17

Rahul M wrote:p.s. israel already uses the arrow family in roles equivalent to that of AAD, I doubt t/S-300hey will simply create another missile of the same class. (saying this as specs of barak-8 are still hazy)

The Arrow and AAD are different class of missile , the PAD are more in Arrow class the AAD is more in PAC-3/S-300PMU3/Barak-8 class IMHO

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Aug 2009 11:23

austin, any news of the russian AAMs from MAKS ?

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 25 Aug 2009 12:19

Apologies if posted before.

3D models of Agni-3SL showing stages and warheads.
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_deta ... duct=65158

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2009 13:41

Rahul M wrote:austin, any news of the russian AAMs from MAKS ?

Not sure if it helps , but this is what i found at Keypubs link

John · Post by **John** » 25 Aug 2009 16:27

Austin wrote:For eg the S-400 9M96M and 9M96M1 weighs ~ 450 kg but has higher range and ARH/HTK capability compared to older S-300PMU1 which weighs ~ 1.4 T which uses TVM.

Both Barak and AAD are single stage active seeker based SAM, so performance differance should be not that much unlike S-400 vs 300. Besides AD2 might offer more range improvements over its predecessor.

As for Spyder-MR the more i read about the more i seem to be leaning towards it being the IAI's name for the land based Barak-8 system.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 25 Aug 2009 18:25

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:p.s. israel already uses the arrow family in roles equivalent to that of AAD, I doubt t/S-300hey will simply create another missile of the same class. (saying this as specs of barak-8 are still hazy)
The Arrow and AAD are different class of missile , the PAD are more in Arrow class the AAD is more in PAC-3/S-300PMU3/Barak-8 class IMHO

Austin,

Rahul is right. Arrow or more specifically Arrow 2 is more like AAD missile.

Here it is right from VK Saraswat [from the interview posted above]:

Q. What is Phase II?
A. The same missile interceptors cannot cover all threats. Threat targets of longer ranges — 2,000 kilometers — will make our phase-II development.

During Phase I: Endo-atmospheric interceptor is AAD. This interceptor will engage targets at 25 kilometers. AAD is superior in terms of coverage area compared to PAC-3, which is 15 kilometers. You can see the difference. AAD’s equivalent is the Israeli Arrow, which intercepts at 40 kilometers. PAD is 50 to 80 kilometers. America is building a missile, THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — that intercepts out to 120 kilometers, but it is still in development. However, a lot of failures have taken place during THAAD development.

Besides, this as of June 2009 IAI has clarified that Barak-8 interceptor has been made keeping in mind tactical missiles [Surface to Air and Cruise Missiles] other than launching aircraft itself. It is not for ballistic missiles [in primary sense] while AAD is primarily for endo atmospheric interception of BMs and secondarily for aircraft interception. Will elaborate more on this with proof in my article.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2009 19:30

John wrote:Both Barak and AAD are single stage active seeker based SAM, so performance differance should be not that much

Exactly they are more or less identical systems , so where is the need to duplicate it via Israel route ?
And all the cost argument is eyewash , these systems developed by india will be as costly or may be less than Israel system

As for Spyder-MR the more i read about the more i seem to be leaning towards it being the IAI's name for the land based Barak-8 system

Spyder may be a good choice , since Maitri is killed ,Trishul went zombie and all the russian sam are getting no good

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Aug 2009 19:42

Nope Arrow 3 or even latest block upgrades of Arrow 2 are 'exo atmospheric interceptors'.Even the interception kill box has been verified for the earlier blocks at an altitude of 40km and I believe upgraded Block 3/4 intercepted the target even at 60km back in 2003 . The new Arrow 3 intends to push the kill box even higher by integrating UAV ,more powerful radars and space based sensors . The Arrow 2 has a top speed of 9 mach with dual mode guidance.

The AAD is a single stage (don't know how effective it will be in higher reaches of atmosphere) missile and has a top speed of 4.5/5 mach and though the open source info says kill box is around 30km or less the live interception was actually done at around 15 Kms.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2009 19:57

Sumeet wrote:Austin,

Rahul is right. Arrow or more specifically Arrow 2 is more like AAD missile.

Here it is right from VK Saraswat [from the interview posted above]:

During Phase I: Endo-atmospheric interceptor is AAD. This interceptor will engage targets at 25 kilometers. AAD is superior in terms of coverage area compared to PAC-3, which is 15 kilometers. You can see the difference. AAD’s equivalent is the Israeli Arrow, which intercepts at 40 kilometers. PAD is 50 to 80 kilometers. America is building a missile, THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — that intercepts out to 120 kilometers, but it is still in development. However, a lot of failures have taken place during THAAD development.

May be Saraswat is a guy who wants to downplay their system , so that what he developed looks better , not to take any way from him for what he has done.

The AAD with a altitude interception limit of ~ 30 km and range > 100 Km is unique in that it on paper it offers a 2x times capability of PAC-3 and is roughly in S-300 class , all these are multipurpose sam which can intercept BM and cruise missile/aircraft

The AAD has a peak interception speed of ~ Mach 4 - 4.5 , average speed is unknown

The Arrow has an interception altitude of ~ 50 km and a peak speed of mach 9 and is optimised only for BM interception , so the comparison is not correct and its apples and oranges. The Arrow is of PAD class with a lower interception altitude of ~ 50 km compared to PAD ~ 80 km but has a higher speed of ~ Mach 9.

The Arrow ABM is custom built to meet Israel needs much like PAD is custom built for Indian needs

The THAAD is in a different league , it can intercept missile corresponding to a range of 3,500 km and a higher altitude of ~ 150 km ( minimum altitude interception is ~ 40 km ) again optimized for IRBM interception , the only missile that comes close to its capability on "paper" is the S-400 BIG missile which claims to have a range of 400 km , highest interception altitude of 175 km and can intercept IRBM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km like THAAD , but S-400 claims are still very much paper claims.