TeerI thought that at the moment DARIN III was just a proposal. Does the Jaguar really need a radar?
DARIN III is more or less a certainty. In Feb this year, the HAL R&D program director made a reference to the DARIN 3 & even showed its breakout – unfortunately, I had left by then.
A radar is part of the fit, it will replace the earlier LRMTS. The addition of an all-weather radar with SAR/GMTI will give a significant boost to the Jags strike capability versus its earlier reliance on pods & eye ball Mk1.
TeerThe southern bases are not meant to serve north. Southern bases are meant to serve South and South East. Please look at 1000 kms south east of India.
No indication that LCA Sulur base is permanent station. For example Su-30’s were based in Pune as it is closer to production center and was induction base. Subsequently the birds grew up and migrated north.
These bases are meant to serve both north & south or for that matter northeast as well.
It is a held view that the increasing proliferation of AEW&C made IAF training & mission planning more “open” for view by the opfor, while we have had the advantage so far versus our western opponent (Aerostat radars).
Secondly, the long legs of the MKI, MRCA class & even the LCA w/IFR et al – make basing very flexible.
There are public references as well.
Apart from its standard scanning modes, the AWACS is designed to operate and ‘fingerprint’ in a silent surveillance mode known as the passive detection system (PDS). In this mode, much ELINT could be gathered from electromagnetic emissions, meaning peacetime PDS can excavate significant details of the adversary’s tactics and orbat (order of battle). This knowledge is inestimable as it could tilt the balance decisively during wartime.
Among other things, the AEW symmetry will compel the IAF to relocate its combat aircraft squadrons further inland to increase survivability. This dispersed deployment in depth beyond the sweep of adversary’s AEW/ESM systems is a long-term, capital-intensive process.
The point is that the process has begun, even though it wont be radical or be done overnight. The IACCS node distribution (India’s integrated c3i for the AF) is also following a similar pattern, its distributed across India for redundancy and not following a north/south approach.
Long overdue.
TeerI did raised the issue of IAF confidence in R-77 BVR Missile or rather lack of here, and why India went for Barak Missile for its SAM instead of Russian.
India went to Barak for the IAF because it had already signed a deal with IAI for the development of the LRSAM & it was but logical to extend it to the IAF.
Russian SAM proposals have not been taken for codevelopment because Russia has complete systems on offer not proposals for JV in this area. But as and when the need arises, they are procured. Eg: India continues to be a substantial procurer of & operator of the Tunguska system.
The very same thing I said during the discussion here, what ACM krishnaswamy is saying now.
FYI, the IAF has NOT cancelled the procurement of missiles. The CAG reports date from fiscal 2007 and prior, and any new inducted system always has defects (Re:Kopyo & initial Bison serviceability) which is worked out over time.
The ACM (Rtd.) has categorically asked if there was a delay in setting up maint facilities for these systems, which bureaucratic/procedural delay can cause issues & he also notes “these were worldclass missiles” (sic).
TeerThats not how India does procurement.
Its how a mediocre journalist who is using the internet for publicity, thinks India does procurement.
Almost nothing in those so called “exclusives” is new or unknown or even the IAF’s POV.
Its just a cobbled together, pastiche of news reports and speculation about each MRCA contender, posted by the aforesaid journalist to drive eyeballs to his blog.
The only blog which has some direct input from decision makers and the like, is Ajai Shukla’s Broadsword. Even he is not infallible either and occasionally goes overboard with editorializing on subjects he doesnt totally “get” but he’s far less prone in recent days to drum up the kind of BS that Aroor (the guy above) & Prasun Sengupta do as a matter of routine.
But fair’s fair. In this case, the journalist does have a point.
Theres always politics in arms procurement & looking for strategic interests to be partly derived out of a $ 12 Billion deal is but common sense.
If France – f.e. pledges to support India on important diplomatic initiatives & economic issues off the table as a quid pro quo, then its a good point to have as long as it does not compromise the IAF’s QR (Qualitative Requirements).
The IAF will, in all probability, list out a few contenders (around 2-3 in my estimation) which broadly meet the guidelines for the MRCA procurement and match their current/ future needs. The politics and strategy aspect will then come into play.
As to which/what/who those 3 contenders will be, thats far too speculative at this point of time. What we, think is not necessarily how the IAF may think & nor do we have all the access to confidential information versus Manufacturer PR.
TeerJunked: France joint missile plan
SUJAN DUTTAA 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”.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090716/jsp/nation/story_11243098.jsp
Another senior defence ministry source also said the Rafale was “out of the MRCA” – all these unnamed senior sources arent worth any damn thing. Things change within a forthnight once political push is applied & negotiatons work out.
Till a few months back, the Mirage deal was not going anywhere, now its cleared.
Yeah right.
TeerWhat is this about? It sounds like a throwback to the Vietnam era where air-to-air missiles were unable to survive the acoustic environment of captive carry without breaking. Does anyone know the rest of the story?
DJ,
First it is necessary to examine India’s audit structure. This news report is using a CAG report which uses Fiscal 07 data. In otherwords, the data is usually 2 years out of date.
Second, India was the launch customer (along with the PRC) for the RVV-AE, problems are to be expected. Take the Kopyo radar for instance, while stated – on paper- MTBF was anywhere between 150 hours and more, actual, acheived MTBF has been around 120 hours.
The Kopyo problems will tell about the RVV-AE situation as well. Basically QC problems in Russia as old SU era QC checks had collapsed and newer production systems were very haphazard.
The solution adopted for the Kopyo is also indicative. The IAF worked with Phazatron till numbers reached the 120 hour mark & till adequate serviceing and maint facilities were set up in India. A similar approach has been adopted for the RVV-AE.
Its worth noting that India ordered more missiles after the initial order. The IAF never orders further systems till there is a clear path available for problem rectification to its choosing. Their funding, while extensive, is still limited by US/UK et al standards, and they are very conservative in going for a mix of new and mature tech.
IMHO, if there had been a severe problem, the IAF would have been making a huge hue and cry about it and asking for Micas and what not. They havent.
TeerIn my view, it is unfortunate that the “JV” with MBDA was scrapped, because as mentioend in the above news report, the Maitiri was simply to be a Trishul missile, with an active seeker assembly supplied by MBDA. Now, regretfully this will be supplanted fully by upto 1,000 Spyder missiles by a whole gamut of blacklisted Israeli firms.
This was Trishul’s last chance to be revived, as it was hoped. With this development it will be shelved permanently.
More fanboy horsesh*t.
The Trishul experience has something in common with the Maitri which is all that Sujan Dutta has said.
To say however, as you have done, that the the Maitri is simply to be a Trishul missile, with an active seeker assembly supplied by MBDA is to plumb the depths of ignorance, which reflects a new abysmal low by any standards.
This is the kind of “interpretation” you bring to any article & you expect to be taken seriously. :rolleyes:
The Trishul airframe was a modernised version of the OSA-AK airframe, with 3 beam guidance, aided by a hybrid WCS with a license manufactured Dutch FCR.
In contrast the SRSAM is an entirely new design with a new smokeless motor, jet vanes, an independent seeker & navigation system to be cued by entirely new radars of local design & development.
To conflate the two, is ridiculous. :rolleyes:
TeerTeer, your argument is that MR-SAM is a weight optimized SAM that is meant for defence only against fighter jets and some tactical ballistic missiles — and not strategic ballistic missiles. Future versions of it will also have a higher range, but the role will be the same i.e. a SAM against fighters and tactical BMDs, and NOT strategic BMDs. This is the reason why IAI advertises it as “half the size and weight of similar misiles”.
Great job in repeating what I said, but could you tell me what your point was? Sort of lost you in all your rambling.
See, the AAD (and not PAD) is optimized for defence in the Endo-atmospheric layer, unlike the two-staged PAD which can target in the Exo layer. Hence, as already stated by Dr. Natarajan the AAD can be optimized to defend against cruise missiles and fighter jets. The range is likely to be >100 kms. It is true that Dr. Saraswat has spoken about the MR-SAM project with Israel, but I’m not aware if he has “endorsed” it; he probably spoke about it in a professional capacity only when asked about it. The facts remain that Dr. Natarajan has nearly lamented it, the Central Vigilance Commission is investigating it and a sacked IAF officer who was investigated has revealed that this project was pushed by an ex-Air Marshal, now an agent of israeli firms. He also said DRDO was “forced” into entering this JV in return for merely 2 squads of Akash. The remaining option of 4-5 squads stands cancelled, in lieu of this MR-SAM.
Stop babbling – not only do you embarass yourself with your lack of understanding of the subject, you continue to make false assertions without any basis in fact.
First – Dr Saraswat & Prahlad have been very clear about the MRSAM project, have endorsed it and pointed out DRDO is ok with the project as it cuts development time. No equivocation here, despite your conspiracy theories.
Second, you obviously have no clue of what the AAD is meant for and what it does. Its a hypersonic “dart” meant to take out an incoming BM (range of upto 2000 Km) as fast as possible. To do so, its adds weight in terms of motor size and seeker capability to a substantial extent. Capability which is totally uneccessary for a missile meant for airbreathing targets. Its size and weight also limit its capability to conduct sustained manouevers at high G since it is NOT meant for engaging maneuverable air breathing targets at the end game!
Get this straight – no matter how much you ramble, how much you BS, it wont change the fact. That the AAD is NOT meant for interception of air breathing targets especially at low levels. Using it is overkill and a waste of scarce resources. DRDO’s focus using the AAD baseline are the AD-1/AD-2.
Third – there are two links earlier on mentioning the negotiations for follow on Akash orders once the initial units are delivered, as mentioned by the Akash lead & DRDL head, Prahlada himself. Your attempts to spin this away are useless.
Earlier, I mistakenly thought LRSAM was a Low-Range SAM and equated it with Spyder. It is a 150 km range SAM, of which only the seeker assembly will be given by France (just as seekers for PAD/AAD were provided by Russia). It will be interesting to see which missile is chosen for this purpose (most probably AAD). The Maitri project on the other hand is an LLRQM project, and this is the one which is similar to Spyder. Needless to say the Spyder purchase is thus, totally unnecessary.
Mistakenly thought – or rather you made it up since you knew diddly squat, and needed to argue something. First get things straight, since you are babbling nonsense again.
The LRSAM is the Indian Navy specificdesignation of the Barak-8 project. Its 70 km in range, not 150 and it has nothing to do with France.
Second, the MRSAM is the IAF specific project and it has two more phases with extended ranges planned.
Third, Russia did not provide the seekers for either the PAD OR the AAD. Agat cooperated with DRDL/RCI for subassemblies of one seeker.
Fourth, the ABM project is entirely different from the tactical missile program.
Fifth, the SpyDer is a ready missile system available NOW, for deployment NOW. One squadron has already been delivered, with deliveries of the second underway. The Maitri/SRSAM specifications are STILL being drawn up, with a formal program start yet to be cleared.
The rest of your arguments are your earlier groundless conjectures only, already answered.
You havent answered anything.
You lack even the basis to have a knowledgeable debate about the issue, since you are limited to fanboy speculation based on media conjecture.
Stop wasting my time with such ridiculous trash.
Teerand more on the Mirage-2000 upgrade
An ARMS TASS report on the upgrade has some more interesting details.
Modernization project will include installation of high-performance on-board computer with extended memory, multimode radar, capable of detecting target at a distance of 70 nautical miles (130 km) in terms of interference, multichannel digital data transmission systems, advanced equipment for the use of missiles near and long-range navigation and equipment.
The cockpit will be equipped with two side digital displays and an improved bottom dashboard, Helmet display systems. Communications, navigation and identification will be replaced to meet the standards of “glass cockpit”.
Upgrading of the complex electronic warfare includes the installation of an integrated receiver warning of approaching enemy missiles, providing continuous information to the issuance of timely action to counter, a fully integrated system of stationary jamming and transmitter interference.
Standard fuel tanks will be increased. The system of sealing the aircraft will be modified to improve the functioning of tropical and desert climates. The system of filling with liquid oxygen will be replaced by on-board system, the production of oxygen, engines will be equipped with a digital control system.
As stated previously the Director of the modernization program fighters “Mirage” of Thales’ Federico Andre, India has also proposed a project that would reduce the signature of the aircraft and provide them with greater security from detection and attack aircraft destruction and their means of air defense.
Teer>>>>then again, the fact that finally someone is developing air bases and thinking of basing squadrons of fighters in the Deccan peninsula is heartening.
We are going to see more of that in the coming years. The bases opposite Pak and PRC were set up primarily because of the shortlegged IAF fleet at the time, now with Flankers, MRCA and IFR equipped LCA’s – that era is all but gone.
With the PAF acquiring AEW&C of their own, they can get a fair idea of IAF mission planning during peacetime as they can look over into airspace 100-200 km into India. The IAF is already doing the same with aerostat radar & intends to do that with the Phalcons too.
But by developing airbases in the south & moving critical assets there, the IAF takes the initiative firmly. The IAF hides its assets from peeking eyes (and sat photos are no compensation for real time, tac information visible on the radar scope) whereas it continues to look deep within Pak. 😉
In the coming days, we can expect more bases to be revamped & brought up to speed in the south.
TeerTimely report Ankush.
As I could make out recently, there is a fair amount of support for the respect to the LCA amongst key decision makers & the aircraft is seen as being a useful part of the IAF inventory.
From the horse’s mouth:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/16/stories/2009071654421800.htm
While Sulur and Thanjavur are being built up as fighter stations, Kayathar is the next one in our mind,” Air Marshal S. Radhakrishnan, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval (it should be Air not Naval) Command (SAC), told The Hindu
“Sulur, to begin with, is going to be the country’s first Tejas LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) base and will be operational by the end of next year or the beginning of 2011. Despite hiccups pertaining to its engine, the aircraft should be a very potent platform,” the Air Marshal said.
More on SAC from earlier.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4225
TeerFor all the bellyaching about the “only 70 km”
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e381/frenchxavier/Bourget%2009/bourget086.jpg
See the booster & the range differential between the booster equipped MR & SpyDer SR
And while it may not be as high in this case, it will be substantial. And the LRSAM/MRSAM are the India specific, JV versions of the baseline Barak-8. Much of the technology will be the same as will be the architecture.
TeerSee, the problem with your arguments is that you keep on extolling the MR-SAM and say how “good” it is for the IAF. It rests on the repeated argument that the “IAF knows what it wants”, and therefore the MR-SAM must be ‘good’.
Dont make me laugh. My “argument” rests on the fact that the MRSAM brings greater combat capability in specific situations & its a capability which is very much required given the growth of the PLAAF & PAF.
While the efficacy of the MR-SAM is not debated, nor is the increased threat scenario now being faced by the IAF, it is also reportedly true that :-
LOL, how can something be reportedly true? It is either true or not. Use the term alleged and be done with it. In this case you have nothing to go on apart from your prejudice & selective use of a notoriously fickle and unreliable media. Admit that, instead of playing word games.
a) This deal was executed more by lobbying and “wheeler-dealing” than the threat scenario faced by IAF.
LOL, how do you know this? Did the IAF personally call you at your personally established Air Power Institute and inform you?
All you have to go on are a bunch of trashy, inaccurate reports from a media which couldnt recognise the difference between a SAM and an ATGM. And given the record of the Indian media in playing for the highest bidder, all the contrived outrage over the MRSAM deal fails to impress me.
What you fail to understand is that there has not been a single deal where whealer dealers have not tried their best. However, for the most part, India has consistently acquired equipment which performs & meets it needs. The MRSAM will be no exception.
b) Point a) could’ve been a non-issue had it not been for extant indigenous systems that can also meet requirement.
Unfortunately, the fact is there is no indigenous system that can meet the requirement within the timeframe. As mentioned earlier, the AAD is overkill for the role the MRSAM envisages.
Point b) has been elaborated upon in this news report also, by Dr. Natarajan who spoke about foreign missile systems taking Akash’s place.
The first report is by Josy Joseph – less said about him the better. The valid points made in the report about mass production & economies of scale are not necessarily anti- the MRSAM case. The DRDO is getting experience via the Akash project & associated ones.
Sensors are not being ignored either, given the half dozen radar projects including several AESAs on development which have fire control functions as well. India’s contribution to the MRSAM itself is a good learning experience.
All in all, I dont see the kind of blind faith you repose in the report.
Natarajan is entitled to his views. He has his right to state that the Akash program should be better leveraged beyond 4-5 squadrons. It would bring in profits a plenty for the industrial partners as well. And his views will be taken into account.
But note he is not raking up a huge fuss and he can – the reason he isnt, because he knows what the MRSAM brings to the DRDO & other projects which are ongoing.
The Arjun comparison is also apples to oranges. In the case of the Arjun, the Arjun was the only MBT project funded. It was & does remain critical for developing a MBT. In the case of the Akash, as I have mentioned previously, there are several SAM programs going on where DRDO can contribute.
The SRSAM is one where DRDO will be doing almost the entire project bar the missile seeker itself. Takes care of the radars, C3I etc again.
The simple point is that the IAF has limited funds. If we lived in an ideal world where the IAF could order seven squadrons of Mk1 Akash, another seven of MK2 & also a dozen MRSAM squadrons and act like the United States, it would.
But it isnt an ideal world. The IAF has to tailor its procurements very carefully.
Secondly, do not ‘debunk’ the news reports or journalists or news reports because it suits your argument.
…you say this ludicrous statement and follow it by..
While it is true that Times of India and Indian Express are select “mouthpieces” of foreign arms lobbies, the same cannot be said of DNA, Telegraph and The Hindu which have often voiced DRDO’s opinion in the past, as in this news report. Josy Joseph had also reported in 2002 that Akash will be inducted in 2004 (the same was reported by The Hindu also via an interview of the then chief of DRDO).
So the media sources which selectively support Abhimanyu are grade A1 whereas the rest are “mouthpieces of foreign lobbies”.
My naive friend, grow up will you?
All media establishments are equally bad or equally good, as far as journalistic integrity goes. Your beloved Josy Joseph, of Rediff fame is one of the original DRDO baiters. He wrote execrable rubbish about various programs including the Arjun, Akash, LCA. The Telegraph has authors who vary between informed and amusing trash. The Hindu carries reports by the excellent TS Subramaniam and the joke of a journalist Rajesh Ramachandran (read his idiotic political piece on the Israel -ISRO sat cooperation and the politically motivated hit piece on DRDO in the Outlook).
Dude, these guys all shift jobs within the larger media – there is no single paper with some certificate of honesty and nicey nice on it.
Track journalists. See what they write and understand. Some do it because of political compulsion, some because they are lazy, prejudiced or corrupt, others because they dont have the time to research more deeply.
But their record speaks for itself, stop believing in newspapers or the like. Go by individual records & facts. Not by your personal beliefs.
Note that the proposal to acquire a 120 km range SAM had originally been there, but this 120 km range has been brought down to 70 kms. If there are plans to develop a beyond 120 km range SAM, it anyway comes under the likes of Arrow, Patriot, Aegis etc. As we know, India has embarked on this route since 2006 and it is unlikely to go beyond purchase of some items for the same like an Israeli radar and a Russian seeker. It is unlikely to go upto JV stage.
Wrong.
This is where you let your prejudices drag you into the morass. The MRSAM is the first in a series of proposals where a range of the MRSAM can be extended beyond 70 km. It is the first step in creating a missile complex. There are two ranges beyond 70 km under discussion.
Second, the Arrow, Patriot, are Ballistic Missile optimized systems. The MRSAM is more like the S-300 PMU series with a secondary TBM function. Understand the difference.
Aegis is not a SAM – its a battle management system- understand that as well.
Third, India did not “purchase” an Israeli radar or Russian seeker. It had a JV with Israel to develop its own version of a high power ABM radar & cooperated on the development of some subsystems with a Russian seeker house.
These nuances are what matter.
The above is inaccurate, as it was Dr. Natarajan and not Adm. Puri to have stated that AAD should be able to handle cruise missile intercepts (and hence fighter jets too) (news report originally from CNN-IBN). Besides, it remains pertinent after stating it only once by such an authority. He needn’t repeat it.
Once again, poor understanding of the topic – the first to state the AAD function was Dr Saraswat, he merely noted it had a cruise missile capability, and the potential to be a SSM.
Of course it does, it has a seeker able to distinguish high speed, low RCS BM vehicles!
The second to repeat that was Dr Natrajan – again as a side fact.
Why did this topic come up? Because at the press conference revealing the BM system, there was a slide with cruise missile systems as a threat, and Dr Saraswat was asked by a journo whether the AAD/PAD combo could handle them. He just noted it could, provided there was an adequate sensor grid, aerostats & AEW&C for detecting low flying targets. Thats where this entire issue got the hype.
And Mr Puri et al then wrote an article criticizing the MRSAM & the CPI-M et al jumped on the topic using it for their anti-Israel rhetoric.
Thats all that occurred.
In the meantime, Dr Saraswat has been giving presentation after presentation with details of the MRSAM project & SRSAM on one of his slides – LOL, and explaining the issue in detail.
Understand this topic before you rant.
The AAD is expensive. Its a very specialized missile with a seeker that could get you a car for the cost. Only a handful of missiles can be carried per launcher & its meant for taking out inbound ballistic missile vehicles.
The MRSAM on the other hand, is a lighter, more agile missile meant to be inexpensive in comparison & be viable against a wide cross section of conventional air breathing threats, and a secondary, limited TBM capability. Its designed for high g maneuvers within the lower atmosphere & not to sprint to a designated target via a look, shoot, shoot ABM system which places a high value on different attributes.
They are different systems meant for different purposes.
India would take more than 5 years to develop a missile for the MRSAM purpose. This was clearly stated by Prahlada (Dir. DRDL). Ergo, the logical method to meet the IAF needs was to cooperate with Israel & leverage what they had with what we had. This was not done because we love Israel.
As in the SRSAM contest, we had an open contest, in this case IAI’s offer was the best. In the SRSAM contest, it was MBDA which won.
Unfortunately, Denel was not part of the competitions despite Kentron being very good in seeker tech, they are banned because of the corruption issue earlier in the UPA regime.
Anyways, to give you a good nights sleep 😛
Chief Controller in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Dr Prahlada (uses one name) told India Strategic in an interview that the all-weather, multi-target missile was accepted by the IAF recently after nine successful field trials, including a ripple fire in the electronic clutter.
Initially, the air force would take two squadrons, and later, it should have another five squadrons.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories113.htm
Of course you will come up with some BS reason not to take him (the Akash lead) at his word, but I already know that.
In case of Akash, there is also a 3rd radar called Battery Surveillance Radar (BSR) that can communicate with the GCC. It can track targets at a range of 100 kms. The GCC then transfers the target to an appropriate battery at real-time, to be tracked and guided by the battery’s BLR. It’s significance will be discussed shortly.
You really amuse me dude.
FYI- the BSR is a 2D radar, not 3D. Its a license produced Radwar system meant for cheap, long range detection of fighter sized targets.
Comparing it to an AESA, of the order of a MFSTAR, you are kidding me right?
Its nowhere close in terms of ECCM, multi target handling or even long range detection. The BSR exists because it was too expensive to provide a separate 3D CAR for each detached Army Akash combat battery & the Akash BLR itself is not meant for fire control & simultaneous slewing for 360 degree volume search.
At least know something about the topic.
Now all Israeli missiles from Barak-1, Spyder to this MR-SAM have to have LOAL and LOBL, because they aren’t guided by a tracking radar while in flight (they are not ARH missiles). So this is NOT some featured capability, but simply a method of operation only. If the target is within seeker range at the site, it is launched in LOBL mode, else in LOAL mode (after being given general directions like an extremely short-sighted person). **
Again, the half baked ideas…
Missiles wo VLS cued to the target via slanted launchers can LOBL. Why the heck would the Barak-B/MRSAM et al need this? Its VLS and can ripple fire from enclosed containers & can reorient in the desired direction. The time difference is marginal at best.
Second, what makes you think that the MRSAM needs full tracking? It can be launched in inertial mode & get MCGU as required intermittently. Thats the entire point of the ARH, conferring multi-target engagement for a surge capability while being supported by a long range sensor.
Now, the range of Kh-31 is 110 kms, whereas the MR-SAM is operative at 70 kms, even in the “hyped” LOAL mode. This does not make it invulnerable to Kh-31 at all. If certain “hide-seek” tactics are deployed like last-minute radar track etc. the GCC of Akash is very well suited to do this to the BLR after it gets real-time target info from the BSR.
Oh man, again the half baked figures. The KH-31 Max range is 110 km, launched at medium alt. Try launching that at low alt, and your range will be reduced drastically.
The missile itself will be vulnerable to the MRSAM system, not to mention the fact that a MRSAM at 70 km is much more likely to get the Kh-31 & the MAR-1 shooter within its envelope rather than the Akash.
Lastly- go look up the Spyder MR for your edification. FYI, I might as well state this. Thats how the Barak system is going to be extended for the timebeing. You’ll have a combo of systems.
As posted above, Dr. Natarajan himself has said that the order of Akash squadrons is curtailed.
The initial order for the MK1 version. The follow on order for 4-5 squadrons is still under discussion. The Akash will be delivered in 36 months, between BEL, BDL, Tata Power, L&T, Walchandnagar & DRDO. The follow on will be placed after this ~100 missile, 16 launcher order & DRDO anticipates a combo of MK1 & MK2 systems.
See, it is an MR-SAM because it is of a range of 70 kms. 120 kms and beyond is the domain of theatre missile defences, which are also configured to target fighter jets and cruise missiles, like the S-300. This can be handled by our indigenous PAD/AAD missiles.
Dont make up your own designations as you go along..this MRSAM/LRSAM jazs is worthless, what matters is the staff requirement.
Arey bhaisaheb, when IAI’s chief Itzhak Nissan himself describes the MR-SAM to India as a sale and not as a JV here, it is the least that the Central Vigilance Commission is investigating this JV. He expressly said that IAI will manufacture and sell this to India.
So let him describe it as a sale, he has to satisfy his stakeholders in a commercial venture. It will show up in his balance sheet as revenues & will also show outlays. All these word games are meaningless.
What matters is what India is contributing- and I doubt you have the interest or understanding to ferret out the details.
I think this may have fallen under the offsets clause, so some local players may have been “roped in” by IAI to make some components. This, you are “blissfully” mistaking for a JV.
You really are unaware. The offsets clause is entirely separate. The JV comes from what DRDO will provide for the MRSAM.
I am not particularly bothered because I know the general details from available public sources themselves – what I also know is that once they come out in a couple of years, you will be bragging on this very forum non stop about this and going on and on and on…such is life.
It is unclear why you are linking an unrelated issue (as usual) of tactical missiles with the current discussion of MR-SAM. If you are hinting at Israeli help in Swordfish radar, then as mentioned above it has been mentioned by the chief of DRDO and it was bought only because India did not have such a radar already, and developing the same would take much time. The same was done vis-a-vis active seekers for the PAD/AAD, which were acquired from Russia.
I am pointing to the fact that you have no clue of the discussion at hand.
I am pointing out that DRDO has so many tactical missile projects underway in Air Defence that the Akash is no longer its sole path to mastering SAM systems.
Coming to radars, the Swordfish or whatever, is just one of seven radar systems with acquisition functions being developed by the DRDO.
The DRDO, has already advanced beyond the Rajendra & 3D CAR, both of which have sufficient production runs in derivatives & the like to justify their development as well. India did not acquire the seekers for PAD/AAD from Russia as well – it collaborated with Agat, for subsystems for one seeker. The other it developed by modifying an existing radar which it already had. 😉
The guidance software is entirely indigenous, as per an interview by Dr. Natarajan. He also explicitly stated that India will never acquire any ready-made system, only some components that it needs.
First look into what he is talking about or even the details of each specific system.
** It is unclear what happens if the target maneuvers since the launch and is in the vicinity of a friendly. What will the MR-SAM lock onto then, once it “opens it’s eyes” ?
Heard of somethings called IFF & MCG?
Look them up.
And while you are at it, also look up how the IAF uses SAMs and firing procedures.
TeerThe discussion was not about what MRSAM is supposed to achieve. It was about continuing to award contracts to Israeli companies despite various ongoing investigations against them, and also the grounds to reject Akash by comparing it with a 15 km Spyder (by Mr. Tyagi) to comparing it with a 70 km MRSAM (by Mr. Antony). Because of lobbying by Israeli companies via ex-IAF officers, the option of 5-6 additional Akash squads has been cancelled. It has been reported in DNA and Telegraph.
You are really confused. First make up your mind.
– The performance of the MRSAM is entirely germane to the procurement as the IAF is facing a severe threat & performance considerations matter.
– Newspapers write all sorts of rubbish, doesnt mean you can pick & choose what to believe. Till the other day these idiots were calling the Akash names, despite facts to the contrary, and now they are its saviours? Please grow up- the hullabaloo is clearly because a rival to IAI- Rafael has spread some muck to have the deal cancelled. Not because these experts like Josy Joseph ( a famous DRDO baiter) have suddenly discovered a conscience.
-If India stops working against companies with “investigations against them” then India cant work with any nation in the world.
The following has been reported :- The IAF originally had a requirement of a 120 km SAM (the AAD was proposed by Dr. Natarajan) and 8-10 squads of Akash. But Lobbying by an ex-Vice Marshall (now an agent) brought this range down to 70 kms, and lobbied for MR-SAM. Simultaneously, he pushed to cancel further orders of the Akash, possibly because it was thought that a 30 km SAM in between a 15 km Spyder and 70 km MR-SAM would be uneconomical — maybe that’s why Akash has been criticised vis-a-vis Spyder as well as MR-SAM.
What are you going to do if it comes to your kind attention that the MRSAM is a first step in creating a family of missiles with ranges far beyond even 120 km. 😀
The MRSAM is the first of a series of missiles.
Secondly, stop dragging in the AAD into this discussion. The guys who initially noted this – Adm. Puri et al, havent continued to write on this. Clearly they got additional details later.
The AAD is an expensive interceptor optimized for BMD interception (check the seeker specs & cost) & not a cheap, lightweight & consequently more agile system intended for AD purposes (check the design Gs pulled at the endgame).
The AAD can be used for AD, but it would be suboptimal to waste such an expensive, specialized asset.
Besides, an AKash needn’t be exactly at the spot of the installation to be defended from 30 kms away. A launch vehicle can be over a 100 kms away and moving from the installation, and many kms away from the battery level radar. The actual area defended can thus be hundreds of square kms.
Oh man, you can quote all the brochure stuff you want, but do you understand how it works?
Heres the fact, the BLR & launchers are colocated, even if the FCC (Flight control center) is far away. An ARM strike would either disable or rather suppress the quantum of missiles that are in the air versus targets! Thats enough in the case of a surge. An ARH equipped missile can be surged far more easily. Its apples to oranges, but the threat level faced by the IAF is increasing day by day, there are serious thoughts being given to massive decapitation strikes launched by a certain nation.
The MRSAM is being procured with a definite reason in mind.
The MR-SAM on the other hand does NOT have such an architecture, in that the launcher also has to have a “massive” surveillance-cum-tracking radar tagged with it, although a centralized C&C centre is also provided. Hence, it’s mobility will be severely restricted and in my view the area defendable by this MR-SAM will merely be equal, if not lesser than the Akash.
Wrong. The MRSAM architecture is very similar to the Akash’s only that its missiles have the capability for fire and forget ops, in a manner of speaking. They can LOAL, whereas the Akash cant. It was not meant to, different needs as well.
Why dont you look into the basics of how ARH missile systems function.
Please note that 2 news reports have already posted earlier, as per which the IAF will NOT excercise this option. In fact, the 2 squads of Akash were also allegedly agreed upon after the DRDO was forced to go into a JV for the MR-SAM. That JV is also under investigation in as to what exactly the DRDO will contribute in it, other than the launcher and launch vehicle (news report posted earlier).
Those news reports are junk. My information is not from “news reports” and the like but from several events where DRDO itself disclosed what Akash plans were. And these were public lest anyone think I am giving away classified info. The JV is under investigation because the idiots in the UPA are sh!t scared of anyone accusing them of another Bofors.
We are not discussing DRDO’s LRSAM JV with MBDA. We are discussing corruption in :- rejecting Akash for an “on-paper” MRSAM, and rejecting a near-proven AAD for the same. This, of course other than the fact when the entire coterie of Israeli firms like IAI, Rafael and their agents are under CBI investigation for corruption and bribery.
The DRDO has a SRSAM venture with MBDA not LRSAM. The MRSAM is hardly “on paper” – its well ahead in development & with systems, including the propulsion component supplied by DRDO. The key components such as the Elta 2248 are also having new derivatives developed- I’d invite you to look at the Alpha and what it tells us.
And the CBI investigated every other deal to date, from the Talwars to the MKI to the Scorpene. BFD.
In my view, an Aaksh-AAD system air defence from 30 km upto 120 kms will be more effective than an MR-SAM of 70 kms.
Stating “in my view” is correct, because as in most things, the IAF and DRDO disagree with you. And part of the reason is that the MRSAM is not going to remain at 70 km either.
I now agree that Spyder unfortunately stands confirmed (per domain-b.com).
My sympathies.
However, the Spyder has vehemently been debated in the IAF with only a certain Air Marshal being “gung-ho” for it. Others were not in it’s favour (article).As posted earlier, the Central Vigilance Commission is already investigating it.
Big deal… Decisions are made via discussions, not everyone agrees with the decision made & nor is it always the case. Whether it be the MKI (many wanted the Mirage 2000-V instead) or the LCA (some wanted Mig-21 production to continue)- there are those who have their own POV and what not. However, in most cases so far, the decision made is usually prudent and for a viable operational reason. There is nothing to suggest such is not the case with the SpyDer.
As mentioned previously, corruption allegations & CBI investigations are cheap & the most effective manner in which a rival firm can have a procurement scuttled. Dont fall for these.
The SpyDer is a very capable system with dual mode guidance and will be a pain for any OpFor to handle. Its surely cheaper than the VL Mica as well.
——-
Besides I note how you coolly sidestepped the entire issue of tactical missile development at DRDO and their radar, missile capabilities apart from the Akash. Just dont know enough about it, do you?
If you did, you wouldnt be ranting about corruption and this and that. There are dime a dozen projects and the MRSAM, SRSAM projects will work well for DRDO. Not to mention the work being done on advanced software for radars, C3I for the ABM project. 😉
TeerThe JPost article is wrong about any Israeli components in Gripen to India. The EW suite is Swedish, the secure comms is German (Rhode & Schwarts) and the AESA is Swedish/British. The engine is the same as in SHornet General Electric F414G. Why is US letting Saab use that engine if they want to push Gripen out of competition? That would surely be the easiest alternative for them wouldn’t it?
According to my contacts any partnership between Saab and IAI would be for tapping into IAI:s existing footprint on the Indian market, in particular Air force integration.
Johan
The GripenIN models at Aero India 2009 were shown with Derby & Python5. That could indicate integration of the ELTA 2052 radar- which should be ready by now (it began flight tests quite some time back) versus the Raven which is still in development. An Israeli EW suite would make sense as well, if one were to choose an Israeli radar. The Comms suite being Israeli is not far off either – the Phalcons use Israeli gear & interoperability would be an issue, besides which IAI has been chosen as the lead hardware provider for the Indian Air Force’s Operational Data Link (ODL) pilot project.
It could well be that SAAB’s “secret strategy” was to offer a Israeli radar/comms/EW suite for the Gripen IN & take the wind out of the sails of those who kept stating that the Gripen NG avionics suite was still immature and yet to be demonstrated.
Sign In
