Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are not serious mach 2+ performers. The T-50 is built to live at or above mach 2, lots of sources out there cite the mach 2.2 number — including Russian state TV

Rather inappropriate comparison I think. The Typhoon is designed to supercruise at or above transonic speeds (not sure about Rafale or Gripen, maybe NG?). The T-50 may be able to achieve mach 2.2, but how long could it sustain such performance and without afterburner? Besides, how often are engagements performed at max speed of aircraft, unless you’re talking about dedicated high altitude/high speed interceptors for high speed targets (a la, Mig-31 and SR-71).

View from side

Thanks for the hi-res side profile pic. From this, it’s apparent the delta wing has either significant wing root extensions, or possibly be even double delta?

IMO, it also appears to be more towards the bomber end of the fighter-bomber spectrum.

Its not the engine.Preliminary speculation is that it was the strap on booster.

And the strap on boosters are designed and built in india or are they derived from Russian tech aswell? I assumed the boosters were derived from the missile programme?

I read what you said, and it didn’t make sense. If your standard of judging what is a copy and what is not, is a picture, then less said the better. As regards backing up what I said, I have enough data on hand to be confident about what I wrote, question is though how much time should I spend on typing it all out from a print copy, to rebut claims based on seeing “pictures from the outside”.

The reason I have referred to the photos above is because of your initial rather prosaic comparisons of the ‘outside’, as you put it;

Form follows function, the reason why a ramjet was adopted, and hence a “look” similar to to the SA-6, was because of IAF insistence on sustained maneuver capability, which was possible at the time only with airbreathing ramjets.

It is you who has made this reference, and still can’t accept the fact that the ‘akash’ and SA-6 use the same airframe/fuselage, which you either don’t understand, or can’t accept, hence, why you keep referring to these as;

Wrong. The only thing Akash shares in common with the SA-6 is the basic configuration of the missile, namely an integrated ramjet & general layout. Even there, the sustainer & boost components of the Ramjet are different.

However, you then go on to contradict yourself by then claiming that everything on the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is totally different and that the airframe/fuselage for the ‘akash’ is completely novel and different to the SA-6;

Think! If everything within and outside is different, can you use a SA-6 airframe? The engagement envelope is different (alt, max, min), the guidance is different, the platforms for deployment are different, and how can the SA-6 airframe cope!

It can’t, so you have to do the design from scratch. Read what I wrote about design influence from the SA-6, ramjet & general layout, thats about it. It took consistent testing till 2001-2003 till the ramjet & airframe for the Akash could be perfected for series production variants.

But, if you still believe the airframe of the ‘akash’ is completely different to the SA-6, which evidently it is not, even from even a cursory examination of photos, fine, believe what you wish.

For the Akash, there are enough details available on the design considerations, including specific impulses of several times versus contemporary solid rockets and hence the requirement for an IRR, the development of special maraging steel (MDN250) for the the missile, the 5 section structure keeping missile systems in mind, including a section for the SADM & warhead, whereas the SA-6 has that entire portion dedicated for the seeker. Where the SA-6 has a warhead, the Akash has its air bottle for the actuators, its command guidance unit, its onboard avionics package with 3 different LRUs. The only real commonality between the two designs is towards the rear of the design, where the sustainer motor + booster follows the same layout as on the SA-6, but even there, the Indian composition is entirely different using a composite propellant booster, a thermal protection system for the motor, plus a Mg powder based sustainer motor.

You’ve only highlighted internal system changes here, no mention of how the ‘akash’ airframe itself is any different to the SA-6, i.e. planform, dimensions, etc.

Which is a fairly irrelevant statement, as the airframe is made out of different materials, has different Cg & would handle differently if the interiors are changed, and the specifications expected are different, conforming to specific local requirements.

So changing all the internal structures and systems has resulted in significant changes to missile handling and performance, but yet no actual redesign of the airframe itself has been included? Interesting.

The comparison is germaine, as the Russians pretty much adopted the same classical layout as on the AMRAAM leading many to erroneously call it an AMRAAM copy. They pioneered the ARH arena, and I’d wager, every designer today is more or less adopting a similar layout.

The Russians adopted the lattice fin partly because of issues with actuation requirements for a compact missile. In the latest version of the RVV-AE currently under development, the latticed fins are to be dropped for similar fins as on current AMRAAMs/other missiles WW, would that make the RVV-AE a copy of the AMRAAM then?

First, you think comparing A-A missiles is appropriate for SAMs? Strange.
Second, it’s you who has used this inappropriate analogy as a rather flawed example of how a similar looking missile can be mistakenly accused of copying. I never said the Russians made a carbon copy of the AIM-120 airframe, far from it. The RVV-AE is accused of being the ‘AMRAAMski’, not because of any resemblance to the AIM-120, but rather to overall performance and design goals.

That’s a fairly irrelevant comparison to make because the SA-2 & H-2/QB series of missiles more closely relate to Project Devil, as in the original form factor and specifications are kept and the missile/system is an updated, one to one copy as far as both schema and performance is kept.

And yet you can’t see the obvious comparison here, no? Like the SA-6, the SA-2 was a Soviet era SAM which was copied by the Chinese, with internal systems being replaced with locally designed/built systems. In the same sense, india has done the same with taking a Soviet era SAM, copying the airframe, and replacing the internal systems/sub-systems with locally designed/manufactured components, which may provide a performance upgrade. No different at all from the H-2/QB development process.

As far as Akash is concerned, its capabilities & technologies relate pretty less to the original SA-6 & are purely driven by doctrinal issues. If the developers had kept the same Acquisition/ Track/HF radar, etc approach as on the SA-6 & not bothered with introducing or experimenting with entirely new technologies, your comparison would be germaine. However, they had entirely different things in mind, as evident from the use of an ARH seeker, multifunction radars and what not, and the architecture was hence designed around an entirely different capability. They went on tailoring systems as trials showed pros and cons, keeping local requirements in mind.

Again, more discussion of internal systems and external guidance systems, which are unrelated to the actual missile airframe itself.

As things stand though, the only thing in common with Akash & the SA-6 is a common layout, and the use of an IRR.

…i.e. it’s airframe.

Overall, where your argument fails entirely is in fixating on the Akash missile, as versus the Akash system. The Akash is not just the missile, its the entire system, comprising vehicles, different radars, and the C4I grid with a high degree of automation & this has all been designed keeping in mind what the IA & IAF expect of the system.

So to divert attention from the fact that the ‘akash’ missile airframe is a copy of the SA-6 missile, you’ve rattled on about the wider ‘system’ as a whole?

It’s so obvious that the ‘akash’ is a copy of the SA-6, that even your compatriot, ‘mirza2003’, made the mistake of thinking the Chinese copy of the SA-6 was the ‘akash’! 😮

And it’s not just me;

Even India copied the SA-6 themselves and call it Akash.

You can’t call a ‘circle’ a ‘square’, and try to force such falsehood down people’s throats simply by stating it repeated times. It may work in some of your other posts and subject matters.

http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/akash-missile/yo54fmdhy2mq/57#

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/sam/akash-sam.html

[/QUOTE]The missile is based heavily on the SA-6…
In appearance, Akash is very similar to the ZRK-SD Kub (SA-6), with four long tube ramjet inlet ducts mounted mid-body between wings. Four clipped triangular moving wings, mid-body, for pitch/yaw control. Forward of tail, four inline clipped delta fins with ailerons for roll control.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. The only thing Akash shares in common with the SA-6 is the basic configuration of the missile, namely an integrated ramjet & general layout. Even there, the sustainer & boost components of the Ramjet are different.

Form follows function, the reason why a ramjet was adopted, and hence a “look” similar to to the SA-6, was because of IAF insistence on sustained maneuver capability, which was possible at the time only with airbreathing ramjets.

So in what way is the overall airframe of the ‘akash’ different from the SA-6, apart from the internal changes to propulsion and electronics?

Today, for trajectory shaping, DRDO is relying on dual pulse motors, as in the MR/LRSAM project.

That apart, its entirely different from within in terms of subsystems & its guidance & support ecosystem is absolutely different as well.

Most of this Akash is a SA-6 stuff is because nobody bothered to look deeper into the systems & see the actual details.

The SA-6 has a SARH guidance, the Akash is command guided. The SA-6 engagement & acquisition radars are different as well and with different functions and capabilities. The overall performance of the Akash versus SA-6 variants is also different, with its capabilities tailored to what was asked by the IA & IAF in specific.

There is an Akash MK-2 as well in development, again with improvements to the baseline Akash.

…i.e., ‘akash’ is an SA-6 airframe with updated internal systems, such as propulsion, guidance and other electronics, which, given the age of the SA-6, is pretty much appropriate.