Your arguement (IMHO) is based on the fact that the NYTimes:

a) Has some hidden agenda against Pakistan
b) Is playing up this report for that agenda

Things could be much simpler. Namely, that some US arms control guys do believe Pak broke an agreement and the NYTimes is just reporting that.

And they have been balanced. They have taken the trouble to quote Rob Hewson who rubbishes the US claims & others.

And if the US claim is true, it could be because of a variety of reasons, namely that

a)Pakistan is facing hitches in operationalizing its Baburs – perhaps because Pak may be facing issues with sourcing components in these times of scrutiny, after all Pak doesnt make high end turbojets etc.

b) Or, the PN is making the best of its inventory, and trying to obtain a secondary land attack capability with its fleet of P-3C’s. I find this a very good piece of “out of the box” thinking but clearly the US may disagree.

All in all, not a big deal.

On prior occasions in 1965, et al, Pak has broken agreements about where it would deploy or what it would use weapons for.

Recently, there has been considerable furore over the fact that the Pak Army has been basically using US funds not the way they were supposed to be used etc etc.

Whats the big deal here?

Like Austin said, Pak will trot out a few ALQ #3 types from the tribal areas…and alls well that ends well…till the next spat. :p

Good News for DRDO- this man is a doer and gets things done.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=52195&kwd=

Dr VK Saraswat to be New DRDO Head

Eminent missile scientist Dr. VK Saraswat will be the new head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). He will take over from Shri M Natarajan on September 1, 2009 as the Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister and Director-General, DRDO. Dr. Saraswat is presently a Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research and Development (Missiles and Strategic Systems) in the DRDO.

Padmashri Dr Vijay Kumar Saraswat spearheaded the development of country’s strategic and tactical missile systems including the ‘Agni’ series of strategic missiles covering a range up to 3,000 kms. Dr. Saraswat, a Ph.D in Combustion Engineering, started his career in DRDO in 1972 at the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad and was responsible for the development of country’s first Liquid Propulsion Engine. As Project Director ‘Prithvi’’, he steered the design, development, production and induction of the first indigenous Surface-to-Surface missile system into the armed forces. The successful testing of ‘Dhanush’ missile on board a moving ship with high terminal accuracy brought a new dimension in the national defence capability. As Program Director AD (Air Defence), Dr. Saraswat pioneered the concept of theatre defence system and integration of national Air Defence elements. He was Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI) before taking over as CCR&D(MSS) in November, 2005.

Dr. Saraswat is a forerunner in the development of number of critical missile technologies that were under denial due to the Missile Technology Control Regime, thus making India self-reliant in Missile Technologies. He has headed various committees of national importance.

Dr. Saraswat has received several awards including Prof Jai Krishna Memorial Award of the Indian National Academy of Engineering (INAE) and National Systems Gold Medal by the Systems Society of India. International Academy of Engineering, Russia elected Dr. Saraswat as a Member of the Academy and honoured him as an Academician.

PK/SK

IAF ordered 18 batteries of Spyder SR missiles i.e. 54 launchers and around 200(400?) missiles for around US$ (260?) 450 million- No ToT or local manufacture

Incorrect – they ordered 18 launchers, i.e. 3 Squadrons of the SpyDer, almost the same as the Akash order. Its clearly an interim order pending the finalization of the SRSAM project.

The 3 Squadrons, translate to 6 flights, each with 3 launchers, ie 18 launchers.

The IAF has 2 flights per squadron. Each flight has its own surveillance/fire control radar for autonomous operation & all are coordinated by a central command post.

In all cases (both IAF & IA), four missiles per launcher, each with 2 Derby, Python-V (this is the standard mix). The TELs for the IAF at least, are TATRA based, and also incorporate a Gyrostabilized FLIR & LRF.

It seems that this week Indian Army has also ordered 3 Regiments of Spyder (MR?) missiles i.e. another (54?) launchers and around (400?) missiles for around US$ 800 (1000?) million – No ToT or local manufacture

Again, lesser numbers than you estimate.

3 Regiments, around 36 launchers, 12 launchers per regiment.
Around 4 batteries per regiment, each with 3 launchers.

Each battery has its own autonomous surveillance/ fire control radar & again, a central MCP to coordinate with the individual battery command posts.

—

Will reply to the latest bunch of speculative rigmarole by Abhimanyu later, if I find the time. Its clearly not worth the effort, and akin to debating a brick wall.

I am really impressed that you are privy to how IAF’s “operational requirements” were modeled.

LOL, he knows more than the IAF or DRDO know. What would they know – one only fights with the equipment, the other only develops it. 😀

Furthermore all the news reports that show his claims are rubbish, are selectively ignored.

Including the clear statement by Dr Prahlad, that the DRDO itself chose the MRSAM venture with IAI, because to do it by itself would take too much time.

Doesnt even note what programs are going on at DRDO, doesnt even understand the difference between a SAM and an ABM, doesnt understand who is in charge of what, doesnt look at operational requirements, has no interest in the current IAF concerns about equipment shortages are…the list goes on and on and on…

Worst part is, even DRDO doesnt agree with him. This February, both Saraswat and Prahlad were talking of the MRSAM JV with Israel & what it will do for future projects.

All he is concerned about is “winning the arguement” and repeating the same rubbish again and again, less said the better about acknowledging the reality.

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist
Times of India
……snipped to avoid quoting the entire text.

Interesting timing, clearly tied to the Arihant launch & emphasis on non proliferation ie signing the CTBT by the Obama Administration.

And clearly, directed against the PRC.

For Pakistan, India’s fission bombs are more than enough & there’s wide consensus that they worked.

I think that for mountains VSHORAD (i.e. between Manpads & SHORADS) is very important. Also to prevent enemy developing easy counter measures, India needs all three types of VSHORADS being IR, laser guided and radio guided to tackle flares, jamming and fog etc.

I am yet to come across some three kinds of such systems being in one inventory. IMHO, MANPADS + SRSAMS or SHORADS are good enough & with overlapping zones of coverage.

We need to standardize on some 2-3 types, and mass produce them.

My preference would be IGLA-S & Spyder/SRSAM.

About guidance, radio guided is out of favour with the powers that be. They want individual seekers/Fire and forget missiles.

Matt is right about the incident. It did take place.

There’s one small problem though. The story is apparently fiction. While there are reports of some jostling between the two navies, which would be expected given China’s high-profile mission far beyond its waters, the story of the submarine surfacing appears to have come from a faked news report. The original source was a piece in a Chinese publication called the Qingdao Chenbao. The Feb. 3 story was republished by some mainland web portals, and picked up the next day by the South China Morning Post. (The subscription-only story is here, complete with an editorial cartoon that says, “Captain Singh! I think they’re on to us.”) The Indian military denied the report.

One poster on a Chinese bulletin board soon pointed out that story lifted several parts verbatim from a 2008 story about a training mission in PLA Life magazine. Then the official media jumped in, noting that details of the Chinese ships’ location on the date of the alleged confrontation don’t match what was recorded in the state press. And it turns out that there is no publication called the Chenbao listed for Qingdao.

http://www.cgi/http://china.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/china-india-naval-duel-not-quite/

I have a feeling that R&D component of MRSAM is basically for missiles with range of 120km to 350km which in the interview published in FORCE may be read as ER-SAM

Quite plausible.

While I have first time read reference to VSHORADS in the said interview. I think light weight launcher + VSHORADS are very imp for China border. I wonder this is reference only to Tanguska or something else is cooking ( It cannot be Maitri as SHORADS is referred seperately)

VSHORADS could refer to IGLA-S like systems with some kind of stabilized launcher + cueing sensor.

Funnily enough, just a year or so back, at an industry event, an IAF officer was speaking of SHORADS as missiles which have a slant range of 3 -4 Km

Designations, acronyms, bah!! 🙂

No, you are “conspiring” by calling this an endorsement. If in a presentation they spoke about it, or if in a newsletter or annual report it is mentioned, it does not mean that DRDO “endorses” it. It was simply a statement of DRDO’s projects.

Besides, you do know that IAI itself officially calls this a sale and not a “JV” or “co-development”. It is only here that the media calls this as a “JV”. In this regard I’m also sure Dr. Saraswat and Dr. Prahlada must’ve given an as-is statement of the same (i.e. India developing only launchers and launch platforms) without going so far as to calling it a “JV”.

The above is your own inaccurate assessment only, because Dr. Natarajan himself has stated that it can be used to target cruise missiles. It goes without say, that it has to be modified to do that. It can then also target fighter jets and tactical ballistic missiles also.

The above is in fact your own “ramble” only, in complete incognizance of what Dr. Natarajan has publicly stated.

Arey, I myself posted links to those follow on orders, but I’ve also posted news reports that say that IAF is NOT going to excercise that option anymore. Those will be supplanted by Spyder and the MRSAM.

Sir ji, the last time you were over the hill “explaining” to me the LOAL and LOBL features of the MR-SAM, which as I pointed later do not exist. It’s not like the LLRQM Barak of the navy.

Now the LRSAM designation has indeed been the source of much confusion, just like the overlapping nomenclatures of Barak-8, Barak-NG and others (read this). Basically all these missiles are a series of missiles starting from 70 kms upto 120-150 kms range. The point is, that these could have been avoided by a combination of Akash-AAD for the IAF and possibly a navalized AAD for the Navy.

Please understand that the tactical missile program is NOT an innovation of the IAF. It is a marketing term used by IAI for their Barak-8/NG bouquet of missiles that they have developed to target fighters, cruise missiles and Scud-like tactical missiles (refer IAI’s website, which is full of this). The IAF caught this “bug” from IAI and is incorporating all these bunch of Israeli SAMs like Barak-8 / NG and what not under equally unclear nomenclatures like MRSAM, LRSAM, etc. & etc.

As stated by Dr. Natarajan, if AAD can be modified to target cruise missiles, it should not be difficult to make it a so-called “tactical missile program”. It is only a single stage Prithvi rocket.

Again, as per this news report, Dr. Saraswat himself has said that Russia has assisted in developing the RF seekers for the PAD/AAD.

This argument of “urgency” is always given be it for MRCA, or Spyder, or PAK-FA. In this way, DRDO will always be on a “steepening treadmill”.

I may suggest to you that you may stop wasting your own time first, by not posting the same inaccuracies over and over again, and debunking any and all media reports.

The Maitri will use the Trishul airframe as developed by DRDO (news report). It goes without say that it won’t use the progressively narrowing 3-beam switching guidance, but a new guidance architecture consisting of an active seeker assembly and a new fire-control radar. That it will have “new jet vanes” or a “smokeless motor” are modifications to the basic Trishul frame itself.

I dont even know whether to laugh or cry at the ridiculous extrapolations from dodgy data which you resort to in this latest post.

1. DRDO endorses the MRSAM – deal with it, stop coming up with ridiculous explanations to explain away the fact that the DRDO categorically keeps referring to the MRSAM as a JV which they raised to the IAF based on the Naval LRSAM project.

Coming to Prahlada – again, you demonstrate a clear inability to even determine the facts.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090328_seeking_scandals.html

”We are jointly developing a 70-km range MR-SAM in partnership with Israeli companies,” Prahlad informed the media at the time the deal was announced.

Spyder”We may take around 12 years but the requirement of the services is that they want it (MR-SAM) fast. The only way to make it in four to five years is to partner with a country which has already developed some of the hardware. If they have got some hardware and we have got some knowledge, we can do it in 4-5 years,” Prahlad said.

Prahlad added that the DRDO had already developed indigenous air defence systems, such as the Trishul and the Akash, but the latter did not fit the bill for the MR-SAM project as its range was only 30 km. The services, he said, had posited the requirement for a missile system with a range of 70 km

So kindly stop misrepresenting him and his organizations position, thank you very much.

2. Nobody in the services or DRDO really care, apart from your self, about what IAI says about it being a sale or being a JV or whatever terms they use for their internal accounting standards. As it stands, the MRSAM project will have a substantial DRDO footprint and will be comanufactured by India, a JV in any term.

3.Using Natrajan to claim that it can target everything is another bit of pie in the sky dreaming.

First kindly educate yourself about the difference between an ATBM system and a system optimized for air breathing targets.

Since you clearly have little awareness of Indian systems or access to any sort of openly available material about them, please read about the Patriot PAC- 3 system and the compromises in that versus the earlier variants. As Wiki states:

The PAC-3 upgrade has effectively quintupled the “footprint” that a Patriot unit can defend against ballistic missiles of all types, and has considerably increased the system’s lethality and effectiveness against ballistic missiles. It has also increased the scope of ballistic missiles that Patriot can engage, which now includes several intermediate range. However, despite its increases in ballistic missile defense capabilities, the PAC-3 missile is a less capable interceptor of atmospheric aircraft and air-to-surface missiles. It is slower, has a shorter range, and has a smaller explosive warhead compared to older Patriot missiles.

This kind of tradeoff exists whenever a system optimized for one role is used in another. Check the weight of the AAD, the radar seeker used in it (overkill for a fighter, thats what it is) and the logistics, and the end game manueverability – that missile can go around 4G.

In contrast, the Barak-8/MRSAM is designed for a much wider envelope through the lower atmosphere extending upwards. Its a lighter missile, cheaper round, and more flexible.

4. Your claiming that the IAF is not going to “exercise that option anywhere” is nonsense. As of January 2009, the IAF was already drawing up plans for the Akash extension. The MRSAM project, including the numbers, the 18 batteries aka 9 squadrons were decided in the FY08 fiscal year, aka more than one year back before the Akash induction was being finalized.

This is but another example of your shoddy research and your ability to twist the facts to suit a preconceived agenda- namely, the evil IAF denying the Akash a chance.

5. Whatever are you rambling about the LOAL and LOBL capability. First understand what these terms mean. VLS missiles usually follow the LOAL capability, they are not slanted towards the target with exposed seeker and acquisition heads. The Barak/MRSAM will have LOAL capability.

6.Glad to see you discovered the Global security link – better late than never. Now the opening line states: “There are plans for longer range versions of missiles, moving in stages to 120 and 350 km. ” – do you even know where GS has picked this quote from & when it was first reported? The link while a mish mash of public news reports, should at least open your eyes about the development plans.

7. I am glad to see some sense dawn – yes, Russia has given assistance in RF seeker tech for one seeker – not handed over the seekers themselves as I repeatedly told you, despite your denials and assertions to the contrary. Good to see you discovering this and that you should finally recant on your original claims of the seekers being Russian and handed over.

8. IAF didnt pick up any “bug” from the IAI – next you’ll be saying our ABM project is because we picked up a bug from the Arrow – do you even realise how ridiculous your claims sound to any serious observer? Their requirements were based on clear operational requirements based on current threat perceptions.

9. “Arguement of urgency is always given” – implying there was no urgency to begin with – do you even understand what urgency is?

There were only 24 FU’s left of the 60 odd SAM-3 FU’s by fiscal 2008. By 2010, the numbers would have declined further. The Spyder acquisition came out of absolute necessity and was not a moment too soon.

India’s squadron numbers were declining, the SAM operational units less than halved & well on the way to being demobbed, and “Arguement of urgency is always given” – ridiculous.

10. Your suggestions about me not “posting inaccuracies” or “debunking news reports” would be taken with some regard if you didn’t post such dodgy claims and confused matters further.

11. Good that you finally discovered the India defence site and are now repeating that verbatim, but care to apply any thought?

Have you seen an image of the SRSAM or even a cutaway of the Trishul to make comments about modifying the Trishul airframe?!

If you actually thought about the topic, you would realise that its much better to start with a clean sheet and obtain positive performance, than try and shoehorn systems into something which was built around a radically different architecture.

All in all Abhimanyu, misinterpreting vapid news reports so as to support a “man didnt land on the moon agenda” serves no purpose, no matter how many times you try it.

Thats your interpretation, but my assessment of the Missile and why IAF went for Israel seems to have validated by recent CAG report.

your “assessment” it seems. Your “assessment” doesnt seem to have stopped the IAF from going on with the RVV-AE procurement.

Or have them cancel it.

India has procured substantial amounts of the Russian Tunguska as well.

Read what ACM Krishna swamy has told and what I argued in the discussion.

I read it and pointed it out to you already.