[Alfresco]

Originally Posted by RGK

My questions may be rudimentary..

We see these kind of missiles & related technologies are sold to India by super powers. How will they counter it, in case of a real war with us?

Most defence deals are not WYSIWYG. Most advanced arms suppliers are militarily powerful themselves. If they have a technologically advanced product, they keep some bit for themselves so that their own superiority is maintained. Exceptions may be the NATO countries vis-a-vis US but then their militaries are tied to the US operationally.

GPS also had an original error built in for civilian use.
"GPS included a (currently disabled) feature called Selective Availability (SA) that adds intentional, time varying errors of up to 100 meters (328 ft) to the publicly available navigation signals. This was intended to deny an enemy the use of civilian GPS receivers for precision weapon guidance."

Russia will never give up its full missile technology to China and India to whom it has sold the S-400 missile system. See this article:

https://theprint.in/security/busting...sition/130479/

Even Renault thought that it is giving us Indians the most advanced technology and we would be lining up to pay through our nose for Kaptur/Captur!

[ashokabs]

If you want to read a very authentic account about missile development in india read "The Leapfroggers" by VP Sandlas. He was the project manager for the SLV-3 successful development and launch and was key in the development of the guidance systems. It's available on Amazon.in for around Rs 340/- for the hard copy.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by chaudh2s

Thanks you very much V. Narayan for providing us such delicious military information. Why is US an enemy of Russia or for that matter North Korea? They do not share a common boundary to fight for. Neither do these 2 nations indulge in terrorism. They may not be democracies, but people can live happily under dictatorships too. I think US is unnecessarily meddling too much into other countries affairs. By putting sanctions or taking military action on them, it makes the lives of common public some bit difficult.
In my professional dealings with my European and American counterparts, i feel the Europeans are much more friendly and respectful. The American are very arrogant and disrespectful at times. They just mean business.

Since the end of WW-II it has been US policy to exercise as high a dominance as they can -militarily and politically and they take great offense to any one who challenges that even 5000 kms away from the USA. This is a characteristic of imperial powers. The British in days of Pax Britannia from 1805 to 1914 did exactly the same. When your military spending is almost the same as the rest of the next 5 nations combined then every problem looks like a nail to your military hammer. Which is why in the cold war they ring fenced USSR with allies linked the USA militarily. Russia's reaction in Crimea, in my view [others may differ] was a result of the new ring fence where NATO was being pushed into Ukraine thus bring American threat to the Russian doorstep. North Korea is a different case - a genuine rogue state like Pakistan but one for which USA does not have a geo-political need and hence willing to go after.

You may want to read Noam Chomsky's 'Who rules the world'. For now the Americans are being slightly nice to us because of China. It could change tomorrow in a heart beat. The reasons the Europeans are geo-politically more friendly is because they no longer carry the military-political clout they did 50 or 60 years ago. At a personal level each of us will have a different experience. As a businessman I have been an employer of both white Europeans and white Americans in large numbers [3-digits] and personally find the Americans easier to work with and within limits more at ease with a brown boss. Here I am not mixing up the American individual with the games and hypocrisy of the American military-industrial complex.

Originally Posted by amods

maybe if you could throw some light on Indian plans on acquiring SU-35s - basically China is ahead of us in doing business with Russia on SUs - they have 35s in service. Or we are looking directly at PAK-FA ?

The Su-35 is a slightly improved version of the Su-30MKI which we have which in turn is a hugely improved version of other Su-30s and of course Su-27s. Mechanically the Su-35 is outstanding but in terms of electronics [or avionics as we like to say], reliability, uptime, ease of maintenance I would put my money on the Rafale. Given that we have the Su-30MKI and are assembling them at home no point going for 20 or 40 Su-35's for a small theoretical gain at the expense of a huge investment in training, logistics, maintenance, tactics etc. Just like the man with the best pen is not the best author or the driver with the most powerful car does not win the Gran Prix similarly buying a new fighter does not make the PLAAF more effective only due to that. That is why in the Vietnam war the North Vietnamese gave the Americans a run for their money - transonic gun armed MiG-17's without even a radar shooting down, in droves, the F-4 Phantoms equipped with guided missiles. PAK-FA is still a theoretical discussion and for now I believe is out of the reckoning. Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

but can you please also provide information on the IAF Air to Air and Air to Ground Missiles, and also info on Navy SAM's and SSM's?

Originally Posted by shantonob

What happened to our ballistic missile shield?

I'll write on the weekend on both topics.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Su-35 is a slightly improved version of the Su-30MKI ... Given that we have the Su-30MKI and are assembling them at home no point going for 20 or 40 Su-35's for a small theoretical gain at the expense of a huge investment in training, logistics, maintenance, tactics etc.

If the SU35 is essentially an incremental improvement, why should the other operational aspects need a huge investment? (Not trying to belittle the Rafale).

Regards
Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

If the SU35 is essentially an incremental improvement, why should the other operational aspects need a huge investment? (Not trying to belittle the Rafale).

Regards
Sutripta

You must re-learn the maintenance protocol of a new electronics suite which is totally different from the -30MKI, stock a new set of spares running into thousands of parts, train pilots separately - every aircraft is different even if capabilities are only marginally different and the pilot should be able to fly blind and many other such items. A fighter is one part of a vast system of hardware, software, radars, command & control, ECM, training procedures and communication and decision making that defend the airspace by all these parts working together. All the pieces have to fit together and work in unison. Buying the latest fighter toy every time the next upgrade is available does little to improve the whole picture and costs disproportionately in every other respect. It is far better to have adequate numbers of a good enough and proven product that everyone knows how to use, repair, and fight with than small numbers of too many types just because on paper they have superior electronics. Air defense is about the right weapon being available when needed at the right place. When the time comes the sensible thing to do would be to make an incremental upgrade in the avionics of our Su-30MKI designed by Indians [though most of the hardware is Israeli, French & Russian]. That would happen by natural passage of time.

[Sutripta]

^^^
Maybe I should have said 'evolution, leading to incremental performance improvement'. If that statement is true (might not be), in general, does the 'huge investment' still hold?

(Was) not arguing with

It is far better to have adequate numbers of a good enough and proven product that everyone knows how to use, repair, and fight with than small numbers of too many types just because on paper they have superior electronics.

Regards
Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
Maybe I should have said 'evolution, leading to incremental performance improvement'. If that statement is true (might not be), in general, does the 'huge investment' still hold?

The evolution will be the indigenously designed [but with imported hardware] Mark II Vetrivale on the Su-30MKI avionics suite. That upgrade can be suited to maximize offensive improvement while still keeping change in spares and procedures to a manageable level.

[shantonob]

Will be waiting for your writeups over the weekend.

My personal take on this whole fighter fiasco is simple. Identify one twin engine and one single engine and base all your future infra training etc on these two machines.
Something like a f-15 f-16 combo.
For twin engined the sukhois could soldier on till we actually got a proper 5th gen developed or acquired. Personally i feel the rafale is more multi role than the eurofighter which is more air dominance centric. Rest of the contenders are just a generation old. Also more than the numbers its more of how many birds you can have in the sky of which the sukhois and russian birds have an abysmal record.
For single engines , there are far less options and any one of the f16 or gripen would do , just an advanced avionics package would have made the difference. The tejas though a fantastic little bird has its limitations. Its too small as it was designed simply as an intercepter and then got added baggage as multirole. I guess we should have learnt the lessons of building a modern aircraft and moved on to a more capable design after the initial prototypes in the late 90's.
At present its just wait and watch how the goverment , opposition and the airforce gets itself out of this mess. After all every day we spend squabbling over this we lose our edge in the skies.
I have been a military buff from a very young age and was a regular reader of the fantastic portal militaryphotos as long as it lasted. Your posts provide a great opportunity to debate on these topics. Thanks and keep the posts coming.

[DrPriyankT]

If I may butt in, the ideal Air Force combination for India in the near term would be 350 Sukhoi-30 MKI's (About 70-80) more than the 272 order IAF placed, which would fulfill the Heavy Fighter Role. Then we would need around 120-130 Rafales to fulfill the Medium Aircraft Role. And add in around 250-300 Tejas Fighters (In their Various Iterations) for our Airforce. The Indian Navy would also have around 45 Mig 29k's and around 55 new Fighters. This would be adequate to defend the skies of a non expansionist country like ours.
The Sukhoi-30 would be better off deployed 25-50-25 on our Western, Eastern and Southern flanks. For the IAF, for our great Western Neighbor, 3-4 Squadrons worth of Sukhois and Rafales with 6-7 each would be enough. For our big neighbor to the north and east we need the cutting edge Rafales and Sukhois deployed in the east in greater numbers. And 3-5 Squadrons deployed down south can give us control of the IOR especially with them teamed with their naval brethren and Air Launched Bramhos.
And all this apart IMHO, the the Rafales can replace our Mig 29's and Mirages 10-15 years down the line 1:1, and the Tejas can replace the Mig-21 (It's original goal).
And I still have my fingers crossed for the AMCA and FGFA.
Suggestions welcome.

[V.Narayan]

Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), Astra - Final Pre-Induction Trials

Astra, the indigenously developed Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), has been successfully test-fired by the Indian Air Force from Su-30 aircrafts, from 26th September to 3rd October, 2018 from Air Force Station, Kalaikunda.

The missile successfully engaged maneuvering targets with high precision meeting the mission objectives. In the series of trials held to date, Astra has been launched in the complete Su-30 flight envelope. The flight test assumes significance as it was part of the series of final pre-induction trials.

Astra has undergone more than twenty developmental trials. The missions included engagement of target at very long range, engagement of high maneuvering target at medium range and multiple launches of missiles in salvo to engage multiple targets. Earlier trials were against drones in various configurations.

All the sub-systems including the indigenous RF Seeker performed accurately, meeting all the mission parameters and objectives. Two missiles were also launched in the combat configuration with warhead and the targets were neutralized, the sources said.

Astra is designed for 80-km range in head-on mode and 20 km-range in tail-chase mode. The 3.8 metre long missile, which has launch weight of about 154 kg, uses solid-fuel propellant and a 15 kg high-explosive warhead, activated by a proximity fuse. Astra uses a smokeless solid fuelled motor that can propel the missile to a speed of Mach 4.5 and allows operation upto a maximum altitude of 20,000 (66,000 ft).Apart from Sukhoi, the missile can be integrated with Mirage-2000, MiG-29, Jaguar and Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65969456.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medi um=text&utm_campaign=cppst


Astra launch from Su-30MKIPhoto Source: Defenceworld.net


Photo Source Press Information Bureau


Static display Astra Mark I Photo Source:Rajanphotos, via Wikipedia

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), Astra - Final Pre-Induction Trials





Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65969456.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medi um=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Attachment 1807714
Astra launch from Su-30MKIPhoto Source: Defenceworld.net

Attachment 1807715
Photo Source Press Information Bureau

Attachment 1807716
Static display Astra Mark I Photo Source:Rajanphotos, via Wikipedia

Thanks sir. Can you please enlighten us why this large difference of range of 60 Kms between the head on and tail chase mode?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

Thanks sir. Can you please enlighten us why this large difference of range of 60 Kms between the head on and tail chase mode?

Thank you for your question. I will try and answer with what little I know. Would request other members to jump in.

In a head-on engagement your radar will pick up the adversary well beyond Astra's 80 kms effective range, track the trajectory and you can theoretically fire the Astra while the incoming target is still beyond Astra's range and guide the AAM to hit the incoming adversary by the time it gets to Astra's outer effective range. Here we assume the adversary remains unaware of your radar, tracking & the Astra's electronic pulses.

A missile by definition has a limited amount of fuel and endurance [relative to an aircraft]. Most AAMs burn their rocket motors in the first few seconds, hit their top speed -Mach 4.5 in case of Astra - and then coast to the target with their speed dropping off steadily. Most AAM missiles have a flying endurance measured in seconds and tens of seconds not in minutes.

Hence in a tail chase if the adversary is flying away from you at say Mach 1.5 at a medium altitude then the Astra's relative speed is down to Mach 3.0 and it has hypothetically say 45 seconds of flying time. That determines the outer range at which the target could be hit. The chase range of 20 kms may be understated if the head-on range of 80 kms is correct. Only my guess. Data camouflage is to be expected

BVR AAMs have for all practical purposes not been combat tested in a crowded sky war and it is not known how well will the IFF work - both man & machine. The shooting down of an Iranian airliner flight 655 by USS Vincennes is a case in point albeit with a long range SAM.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for your question. I will try and answer with what little I know. Would request other members to jump in.

In a head-on engagement your radar will pick up the adversary well beyond Astra's 80 kms effective range, track the trajectory and you can theoretically fire the Astra while the incoming target is still beyond Astra's range and guide the AAM to hit the incoming adversary by the time it gets to Astra's outer effective range. Here we assume the adversary remains unaware of your radar, tracking & the Astra's electronic pulses.

A missile by definition has a limited amount of fuel and endurance [relative to an aircraft]. Most AAMs burn their rocket motors in the first few seconds, hit their top speed -Mach 4.5 in case of Astra - and then coast to the target with their speed dropping off steadily. Most AAM missiles have a flying endurance measured in seconds and tens of seconds not in minutes.

Hence in a tail chase if the adversary is flying away from you at say Mach 1.5 at a medium altitude then the Astra's relative speed is down to Mach 3.0 and it has hypothetically say 45 seconds of flying time. That determines the outer range at which the target could be hit. The chase range of 20 kms may be understated if the head-on range of 80 kms is correct. Only my guess. Data camouflage is to be expected

BVR AAMs have for all practical purposes not been combat tested in a crowded sky war and it is not known how well will the IFF work - both man & machine. The shooting down of an Iranian airliner flight 655 by USS Vincennes is a case in point albeit with a long range SAM.

Thanks sir for the excellent reply. It's all clear in my head. The dynamics and the calculations needed to fire a BVR Missile are immense. No wonder now a combat plane is designed around the avionics and the weapons package.

And from your explanation I now understand why the kill probability of the Meteor Missile which we are getting from France is so good. All thanks for its ductless Ramjet Engine which gives its a good burn time.

[mpksuhas]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Just like the man with the best pen is not the best author or the driver with the most powerful car does not win the Gran Prix similarly buying a new fighter does not make the PLAAF more effective only due to that.

As legendary US general George Patton said "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. "

If I may add to your above examples, case of Pakistani army getting hit badly, even though they were having a better main battle tank, ironically named after general Patton during 1971 war with India.


Coming back to missiles, one missile development which I was keenly following since past few years was that of cruise missile Nirbhay. There was a video of the missile captured during flight by an IAF Jaguar during its trial couple of years back.

However, there been few news articles lately mentioning that the program may be shelved due to repeated failures. Since the missile was part of republic day parade in 2018 too, I hope the news is not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow9rXuTk5rs

[V.Narayan]

Remembering Dr APJ Kalam on his 87th birth anniversary.

No thread on India's missiles can ever be complete without a mark of respect to our Late ex-President Dr. APJ Kalam. His best quote, in my view, is -->

“Why is the media here so negative? Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?” Dr. Abdul Kalam had said in one his best speeches delivered at the At the Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad.

We Indians berate ourselves more than we need to. We see it in our drawing room conversations and we see it on our social media threads. We do not acknowledge how far we have come from the starting point in 1947, the technological, geo-political and economic hurdles that have been overcome painfully. While there is a lot that is not right in our country and a lot that could be better for just a moment let's celebrate what we have achieved from the green revolution, the Amul story, the IT success, the roots of democracy, the telecom spread and so much more.