TeerYou guys all crawl out around the same time huh?
Well you crawled out with a dubious claim, so I replied. Have a problem with that?
Teer, thanks for the flame bait, I will resist it today. Have made my points.
😉
What flame bait and what point?
Asking for a link that the JF-17s in PAF service are capable of A2A BVR, is flame bait?
TeerGood enough only for you. The rest of us – Edge, JimmyJ and I all agree with Quadbike.
“I dont really care if it has been demonstrated or not”
Capability translates to certainty only if it is demonstrated. When were the trials for any BVR done on the JF-17, A2A?
As the JF-17 was “jointly developed by the PAF”, surely you must have the details.
TeerCapable of carrying, yeah sure, why not, question is whether the JF-17 is BVR capable right now, very doubtful.
And with only a handful of actual JF-17s ordered, only dumb bombing runs done, talk of better French systems being considered (and issues with funding, as usual), it does appear series production of the definitive variant is yet to start.
All thats been done so far is putting together the SKD kits of the LSP according to specs provided by Chengdu.
TeerASTOR will be a revolutionary capability for the IAF. A realtime system with long loiter and wide area SAR/GMTI. Wow.
It will give the IAF (and India itself) a huge tool with which to manage infiltration and observe opposition intent in peacetime, and at wartime give it a capability to decisively predict and influence the critical ground battle.
Something like Cold Start, with ASTOR and Phalcon (for airspace management and AEW&C) overhead & a squadron of IAF Su-30 MKIs on call, thats equal to having a separate brigade sized artillery group. Never mind that once the BMS gets in place for tactical formations (the Corps C3I system is already in induction), and these receive inputs from the ASTOR Ground stations – thats a huge increase in capability. The IAF will have a problem asking the IA to even prioritize requests.
In peacetime, it can keep a watch on infiltration bids regardless of inclement weather (which are used by terrorists to cross the LoC) and provide ample warning for IA ambush groups to get in place.
It still may not be as capable as a full JSTARS, but still offers substantial capability and India would do well to acquire several ASAP. As far as I know, there is no similar system which is battle proven.
The JSTARs of course remains the gold standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-8_Joint_STARS
Once the LRDE AEW&C is done, I expect they will scale up current efforts in the SAR/ISAR domain to a system of this standard.
The IAF is already ahead of its regional peers in terms of the quality and capability of systems it has in place but continues to suffer from reduction in numbers of overall platforms. The solution for that is to continue with the focus on force enhancers while building up numbers to what they were. An ISR asset that allows a single squadron to do the work of several sent blind at different targets on the basis of intelligence collated earlier, is highly preferable and can offset the temporary loss of numbers to a great extent.
While sanctionable, and prone to EUMA etc – the combat potential these systems offer is worth the risk.
Absolutely agree about tankers as well. The IAF would do well to acquire more and more tankers.
It shameful that the Airbus tanker proposal was dropped. What a sham. The platform capabilities were amazing, and able to transport a huge amount of fuel, able to reconfigure for cargo all the while carrying a substantial number of troops if required. Talk about multirole.
Very stupid decision to have scrubbed the deal.
Its pretty to interesting to see the amusing dynamic here between A and S, saying more or less:
A: Pvt sector sucks, PSUs rock
S: PSUs suck, only pvt sector rocks
In matters of idealogy, reality matters not as can be seen here with such extreme positions. As things stand, both are required, both are doing useful work and have their pros and cons.
TeerPrior, a few nitpicks if i may.
The point is that many in the Indian press, and by extension the chaps at AFP etc who just pick up stuff and run with it , are reporting this as a failure of the BMD system and the AAD missile, when it anything but.
One of the key design attributes in the system is that the MCC only launches the AAD if a threat is registered, since it wasnt, the AAD was not launched.
This report headline OTOH nails it.
“Indian ABM test aborted after target malfunction “
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/03/indian-abm-test-aborted-after-target.html
This report, by respected reporters TSS et al, is a bit more verbose, in saying pretty much the same thing, but is not quite as to the point as the prior one.
” Setback to ballistic missile defence trial “..
..compare and contrast to the execrable reporting in the Times of India aka TOI (let) of India which reported (cant be bothered to find the link) which said – “Interceptor missile flunks trials, shield years away”.
How exactly did the AAD flunk any trial!
As things stand, the next trial is in June.
Not just because of General flight notifications etc/ICAO permissions or not, but because they’d have to make one more expensive target missile & solve what went wrong with the previous one.
Also, it was not exactly a Prithvi that failed.
Common press reports suggest that, but this is not exactly a standard Prithvi but a specifically made Ballistic Missile target, a sort of local equivalent to Israels Blue/Black Sparrow.
The Prithvis that India does have in its inventory are simpler missiles and very robust.
TeerHere is the Saraswat interview portion with the details on the operation of the system.
Dr Vijay Kumar Saraswat, DRDO
Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat
Chief Controller of Research and Development, India’s DRDOKnown 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 be 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.
TeerWhy must the target be engaged only if it is coming in the textbook trajectory flight path?
I understand that if the scope of the current design of interceptors is limited to intercepting incoming missiles with textbook trajectory then you would rather not want your interceptor to be branded failure when it is the target that is actually malfunctioning and hence abort its launch. Afterall, all missile defences existing today and employed by major powers are basically against ballistic ones only and not against ones deviating from it.
But in realistic war scenario you do need to knock out incoming faulty missiles too. Because although the faulty incoming projectile might not reach the intended destination but it would still fall somewhere in the country. And in a country like India wherever it falls there will be people. Perhaps, justifiably, the scope of all present missile defences of any country, not just india’s, is to defend intended home targets from incoming missiles but random assets can’t be protected from random hits.
It was the faulty iraqi missiles fragmenting upon re-entry affecting patriot’s effectiveness that led to concept of MIRV. So are people now going to study deliberate introduction of some manufacturing variations to introduce unpredictability in flight path? (although making sure it reaches destination would be a challenge)
If you look at how the Indian ABM system works, or even analogs with similar purpose eg Arrow 2/3, Iron Dome etc, you would have your answer.
Anyways, all ABMs defend what is referred to as a zone of interest or protected area. Think of it in visual terms as a hemisphere covering your vital assets. You want to engage any missile/air vehicle that gets through into that hemisphere, and as away from your VA as possible.
To be effective, these systems need to be heavily automated, with the Mission Control Terminal (MCT)/ Mission Centers running specialized software which takes in the radar data, processes it, and then decides whether the target detected by the radar is a) missile, satellite or any other vehicle b) do trajectory analysis and determine whether it is a threat c) determine the optimal time to engage it d)the assets to engage it with and e) schedule the entire task with the appropriate fire control unit – they could be mobile launchers, stationary missiles in silos etc.
Now, the Indian ABM follows exactly the pattern above – you can get the actual details as they have often been discussed (see Austins post above) or for basic details, search for Saraswats interview to Defense News. In this case, when the MCC determined that the target missile had malfunctioned in the boost phase itself, and was not going to even be a threat, it held off on the launch.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/16/stories/2010031656081300.htm
This is a vital part of the system.
Remember in an actual wartime scenario, you want to conserve as many missiles as possible, especially so as in the indian system, you shoot a salvo of 2-3 missiles anyhow, to ensure that the target is absolutely and certainly destroyed (Pk of 99.8%).
Given that, if you were to launch a salvo each time the opponent just launched a missile…that would not exactly be a practical ABM system.
In this case, check what happened. The missile did not even enter its terminal phase for the AAD to be launched.
Given that there is no target, why should the AAD be launched?
If there was any chance of the missile, even with significant deviation, coming on top of, or posing a threat to the AOI/Vital Area – the AAD would be launched. (In the real system, depending on the speed/altitude, it would be a combination of PDVs and AADs).
For reference:
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0110/news/iron_dome_060110_more.html
Upon the detection of a rocket launch, the threat’s trajectory is quickly analyzed and the expected impact point is estimated. If the estimated rocket trajectory poses a critical threat, a command is given within seconds and an interceptor is launched against the threat.
TeerWhat stupid reporting..how did the interceptor test fail when the interceptor was not even activated because the target missile flew out of the kill zone?
If anything it is the Prithvi missile they used as a target which failed.
The system performed as it is meant to. If the target missile is tracked as a non threat, the PAD/AAD wont launch. Pretty straightforward.
And yes, it is stupid reporting. Indian defense journalists, by far, have little to zilch accountability for their reportage, their accounts are mirrored then by statements from AFP etc. which rely on local reports.
TeerTeer you seem to be confused or there seems to be some cross wires, anyway I am happy to agree to disagree.
I simply dont get what you are saying. For the purpose of clarity, kindly clarify the above, when you bring up the PLA’s 2nd Arty Corps or whatever organization:
1. Are you referring to the tactical or conventionally armed use of Ballistic Missiles?
2. Are you referring to the above, but with CMs instead of BMs?
3. Are you stating that the Indian Army should concentrate more on Gun Tube Arty (which kind of is irrelevant, since the Brahmos is not intended for GT A type of roles)
4. Are you of the opinion that the Brahmos is applicable to the Pak border and not the PRC border (why?!)
5. Are you referring to the use of Brahmos in a strategic role, hence the comparison vis a vis BMs or the user of the term deterrence?
Until I get a clear idea of what your point is, its pretty hard to even decide where we “agree” or even “agree to disagree”. As they say theres a phrase, in “vehement agreement” – even that could be the case, I simply dont get what you are saying, since your posts are all over the place.
For the record, what RahulM (and others) are saying is pretty straightforward, the Brahmos is a very useful missile from the IA point of view. They get a hard to target system able to reach out till 290 km, which they can use for a variety of purposes.
And its a part of an overall upgrade of firepower thats being put in place – from guntubes (long delayed) to MLRS (Pinaka + Smerch + indigenous Smerch eqvt/complement in future) + other systems in the pipeline (eg Nirbhay, Shourya etc.) plus other systems.
For instance, check out this RFI:
http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/66/RFI-110310.pdf
Now why do you think this is being acquired?
The answer is straightforward – another tool in the toolbox.
Personally, what is the most satisfactory thing is that (on the tactical and conventional level, these two terms not always being synonymous) – the Army has started inducting this:
http://frontierindia.net/artilery-combat-command-and-control-system-shakti-dedication-to-indian-army
This is being rolled out across the entire Arty and makes a sea change in terms of efficacy of fire and performance.
TeerSigh, it may be the batch, it may not. Does not matter, PAF has more then enough PGMs. The fact we got 1,000 in on delivery means these were probably US stocks, we will only pay for brand new bombs. Guess we may never know, but being a Major Non NATO Ally and acess to EDA means it is not even an issue…….
Again, its rather irrelevant to what I am trying to determine. My aim is not to determine whether the PAF has enough/excess LGBs – but whether these are part of the original LGBs contracted for or not. Thats about it, nothing less – nothing more.
Yes, they could be brand new bombs or even older ones stockpiled by the US. Technically, LGBs should be robust enough to last a while. Only the battery & some other associated eqpt needs to be changed/renewed in minor overhauls.
However, you may be able to work out that these are a new batch from this report. Not the previous order was placed couple of years ago this new batch was requested in December. Also not orginal order did not include GBU-10s while the recent deliveries from US stocks do include them.
Again, the December “request” could merely be a request to expedite existing orders. And while the GBU 10 is indeed a new reference, it may be a modification of the earlier order, which did include GBU-12’s – which are referenced below.
I must admit,I do enjoy it when I am right!
Sure, but we’ll know that once there is some kind of explicit cite by either the Pak or US side about these deliveries. Hopefully, there should be one to clear the matter up.
BTW – two more questions. Are the older existing Vipers (A/B) Sniper qualified or limited to Atlist?
Also, what were the number of LGBs dropped in the Swat operations, have definitive numbers been released?
Unfortunately, googling is a waste of time on these questions, so thought might put up the question here.
TeerReports say these were “rushed to Pakistan” from US stocks, also you will note the numbers from bother batches are different. The other batch is also part of Block 52 order, whilst the batch we have received will be used by all PAF aircraft that can use it in service now.
Well, given the PAF states that it needs PGMs for its ongoing ops, they may have asked the US to expedite delivery, so these were pulled from USAF stocks. IIRC a similar approach was taken when the Israelis asked for PGMs asap to top up their depleted stocks.
Also, the numbers could be different, because these are part of the batch and not the entire lot. The PAF overall GBU 12/et al LGB orders stand at some 1600, so this could be part of the batch.
Now, about the compatability issue, I think even that can be addressed. IIRC to properly explot the capabilities of an AMRAAM C7, one really does need the APG-68V(9) but a LGB can be dropped by just about any Viper, provided the proper s/w update is done to the stores management and weapons control system.
I have been doing a bit of digging but still cant find any link that testifies this is a separate order from the original, hence my query If you do come across something, please share it.
TeerD.J.,
If you can afford it, just upgrade/replenish your MiG-29 fleet with new MiG-29s or even updated older airframes from the Russian stockpile. Far more potent and versatile than any beat up F-7 or JF-17. The Russians have long been Serb “supporters” in the int. arena if memory serves me right so thats a plus.
TeerDont forget these LGB top ups were excess US aid rushed to us. This does not form part of the MASSIVE package of JDAMs and LGBs we have ordered as part of the Block 52 deal. PAF (for an air force its size), will have precision munitions up to its eyeballs…
Is there any source/link which points out this is a separate package and not that contracted earlier. Because it seems to be part of the same package (GBU-12 etc).
TeerThis is interesting, wonder if they can integrate the sensor onto the pinaka rockets.
Various PGM solutions are planned, the first – as you correctly surmised, using the Nag IIR seeker as a baseline.
Also from what I understood of the missile they were trying to develop a mmw radar, did they fail? Does seem like an elegant solution however.
The MMR seeker was developed and trialled successfully. The IA however is not too keen on it as it is heavier and larger than an IIR seeker, it is all weather though.
Couples of these seekers on pinaka put on the border fed IR targets from UAV’s would make an interesting combination.
DRDO wants to put those seekers on a range of PGM payloads which can be launched either via missile or aircraft.
The 11th plan started in 2007 and will end in 2012. By 2012, the aim is to have PGM capability, demonstrated and with service cooperation, ready for production/deployment.
TeerSome of what you say makes sense, I would suggest you google up the second artillery corps and understand what deterrence truly means!
What is this fascination with the 2nd AC. Its just a structure. Whether India operates viz the 2nd AC, or with a SFC with individual elements assigned to it, the result is the same.
Also India need to test a thermo nuclear warhead to have any credible deterrence after recent public airing of laundry.
Deterrence is achievable even with fission, boosted fission ordinance, not TN alone. TN are required however because they are much more bang for the buck in terms of (limited, expensive) fissile material. In otherwords, deterrence exists as far as the Armed Forces are concerned. At least for now.
India also needs to show some belligerence which it has not all these years, it has always acted as a supplicant which will be its Achilles heal.
With the current administration and their hangers on, supplication is what we will get. But frankly, they are a reflection of India itself. Unless the public elects leaders with b@lls what you will get are supplicants, eg MMS.
Sign In
