Indian Military SAM Systems

TR1 wrote:Got my fingers crossed India makes the smart decision and buys Antei-2500...should have done that a decade ago D:

To bypass regimes like the MTCR India has bought services from Russia as opposed to the end product. For example ICBM technology .

http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-channel/360-todays-newspaper/11724-with-russian-help-india-to-join-icbm-big-league-soon.html

Services bought can very easily be concealed . In this case too India had bought sufficient technical expertise from Russia ( and to a limited extent from Israel) to develop the indigenous Prithvi BMD and the AAD 1 & 2 .

Therefore , unless these home grown projects come a cropper the realistic chances of India purchasing the S 300 V4 or S 400 is pretty slim . That being said there is the possibility that India will eventually purchase a anti ballistic / cruise missile system from overseas just like it did in the case of the MMRCA .

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/analysis_indias-ballistic-missile-defence-capability-is-grossly-exaggerated_1527966

As I know Almaz-Antey in 2012 got all ordered tracked vehicles for S-300V4 and now they ordered ~40 vehicles more, so maybe next year army will have two brigades of them.

india wont buy s300 or s400 anyways .... india is keen to have its own missile defense .and maybe a joint venture with israel .....although i would preffer russia ...

but with recent curruption charges i dont think any defense deal is going thru soon with elections around the corner .....

russia should seriously think about making india a partner rather then a customer ..

Making a partnership would probably just complicate a timely fix to the gaping holes in Indian strategic AD.

In the long term, it might be a good idea.

ricky123 wrote: but with recent curruption charges i dont think any defense deal is going thru soon with elections around the corner .....

Well this could be the chance for Russia.

ricky123 wrote: russia should seriously think about making india a partner rather then a customer ..

As TR1 said, in the development of future system yes, but in the short term - there is simply no time.

As I see it as of this point India does not have any serious AD network and making one for the size of India would require significant

investment much more than some of India largest acquisition programs. Only than joint programs with Russia would make sense.

I seriously doubt whether the US will allow Russia to sell S 300V4 or S 400 to any country , including India .

India's BMD system has received sufficient inputs from Russia so it should shape up to be a great system.

What could US do to stop Russia from selling any SAM to India?

Nothing. Russia has marketed them all over the world in the past.

Yeltsin is not around bowing to whatever is told to him, and India is under no sanctions like Iran, or international "pariah" status.

China has been buying up S-300 and looks to be a certain customer for S-400. The US would be even more concerned about that, but what can they do? Nada.

Russia has even delivered SAMs to Syria while the civil uprisings were already happening, if the US can't stop that, well...

I seriously doubt whether the US will allow Russia to sell S 300V4 or S 400 to any country , including India .

India's BMD system has received sufficient inputs from Russia so it should shape up to be a great system.

No disrespect Sujoy, but India working on BMD and ignoring an integrated air defence network is like making sure the doors are locked in a house with no walls or roof.

There is no point spending a fortune protecting yourself from BMs when cheap and simple cruise missiles can penetrate you defences.

BTW The US simply has no say as to whom Russia sells military equipment, and can hardly lecture any country on arms exports...

Export versions that are hardly top of the shelf . The S 300 can be exported but not the S 300V4 which is what India would need

India wouldn't get S-300V4, they would get Antei-2500M most likely, with all the features they want. It would be easier for the US to protest the export of nuclear powered subs to India... but they haven't.

The US still blocked the sale of Arrow 3 to India in the early part of the last decade . India only has earlier version of the S 300 PMU 2 which it bought in the mid 90s.

The US has leverage over Israeli components only. As long as India buys the Antei-2500 and doesn't want lots of Israeli bits they should be fine.

Two things here . First, Russia only sells the export version of the S 300 to China knowing fully well that China will reverse engineer the technology . China bought the S-300PMU-2 and then reverse engineered it to produce the HQ 18.

Second , China unlike India is a superpower so there is hardly anything that the US can do . China manipulates it's currency regularly to make it's exports cheaper . What has the US been able to do ? Zip, zero , zilch .

point one is why Russia would prefer to sell to India than to China, point two the US has long supported Pakistan yet has never blocked any India/Russia deal including Brahmos, Su-30MKI, or the SSNs Russia leases to India.

i agree .. no need to develop something from a scratch ...go for joint developments ..
i think russia and india needs to be more aggressive ... fk america who r they to tell us what we can or cannot do ....

russia needs to come out and support countries it calls allies ..or it will keep losing allies like syria ... america sells what it wants to any1 they want ... russia needs to do the same ...

anyway the curruption is taking its toll on india .. a family has been talked about in the italian news and every1 in india thinks it is gandhi family ...

another join venture cancelled by india

The Indian government has rejected a proposed joint venture between Israel’s Rafael and Mahindra Defence Systems to produce anti-torpedo systems, a move that surprised Mahindra officials and could undermine future foreign teaming efforts with private Indian companies.

Indian Defence Ministry sources said the ministry opposes such teaming projects if they involve the Indian private sector in strategic programs. Instead, the ministry supports establishing relationships for such sensitive projects only through the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Mahindra already has a joint venture with BAE Systems to manufacture defense land systems products.

The joint venture proposal would have given Mahindra 74 percent equity and Rafael 26 percent. It was turned down by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) last month, said Khutub Hai, a retired Indian Army brigadier and CEO of Mahindra Defence systems. The company is “unhappy” with the decision by the Indian government, which gave no official reason for its denial.

“Both Mahindra and Rafael are surprised at the decision as both are reputable companies which have extensive engagement with the government of India on projects related to defense and homeland security. We will be seeking clarification on the reason for this rejection,” Hai said.

Hai expressed his “shock” over the decision while Rafael is already engaged in developing high-tech defense systems in India. Rafael and DRDO jointly are developing India’s long-range surface-to-air missile systems and armoring technologies.

No Rafael executive was available for comment.

In March, the two companies signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly develop a variety of defense systems, including anti-torpedo systems, electronic warfare systems, advanced armoring systems and remotely operated weapon stations for the Indian Army’s $11 billion Future Infantry Combat Vehicles program.

“The decision to turn down the [joint venture] between Mahindra Defence Systems and Rafael is a retrograde step as it will discourage overseas defense companies from forging tie-ups with the domestic private sector companies to produce high-tech defense systems,” said Nitin Mehta, a defense analyst here.

No disrespect Sujoy, but India working on BMD and ignoring an integrated air defence network is like making sure the doors are locked in a house with no walls or roof.

Integrated air defense is an extremely expensive proposition which on this date only the US has with Russia and China taking steps towards it . Here in Asia apart from China only Singapore is working towards a limited integrated air defense.

I am no fan of the Indian military establishment but then a BMD system does save your from certain threats if not the whole gamet of threats . A Kevlar vests doesn’t save one from a RPG but does save one from 9mm or .45 cal . One does not give up wearing a Kevlar vest just because it cannot save him from the RPG.
BTW – How does one build a door when there are no walls ? Just curious .

the US has long supported Pakistan yet has never blocked any India/Russia deal including Brahmos, Su-30MKI, or the SSNs Russia leases to India.

Sale of Brahmos does not violate the MTCR regime as the range of the Brahmos has been set at 290kms . The US did block the sale of Russia’s cryogenic engines to India as Uncle Sam felt India would use them to manufacture ICBMs.

@Sujoy

There is Iron Fist exercise going on in India just right now. I don`t know if you noticed but no S-300P/V in that exercise, unlike

old S-125 which was modernized by Belarus (read it somewhere)and Osa.

Look at these link .. btw nice pictures

LINK






And just find blog of our forum member SOC. He thinks India besides some 36D6 radar (just like in Syria case)there are no evidence

of any India S-300P/V battery.

The Indian SAM Network

and his response to one of his visitors about S-300 in India

Sean O'Connor said...

No evidence of any S-300P or S-300V components anywhere, unless you count the 40V6 masts used with the TIN SHIELD radars!

Sujoy wrote:it is important to remember that those individuals in the Indian media who patronizes US products do so because they are on the payrolls of US defense contractors . In other words they are mercenaries . If Rosoboronexport pays them they will rub eloquence on Russian manufacturers as well . It's that simple .

Fully correct .

Victor wrote:Sorry Sujoy but I found not evidence of India S-300 although there has been much talk about it

I do not know whether India has S-300 or not.

Viktor wrote:@Sujoy
There is Iron Fist exercise going on in India just right now.

Thanx for the pics Viktor . Yes, I am aware of this exercise that has just concluded in the deserts of Northern India.

Viktor wrote:I don`t know if you noticed but no S-300P/V in that exercise, unlike

Going by these pics no , I too haven't noticed any S 300 and apart from the 3 -4 links that I shared with you earlier in this thread I too do not have any further links . As & when I get them I will send it to you .

The Center for Strategic & International Studies based in Washington D.C had published an article in July 2010 where they state :

" Following the Pakistani purchase of M-11 missiles from China in 1995, India purchased S-300 missile defense systems from Russia, which are effective against aircraft, cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles. "

http://csis.org/blog/india-successfully-tests-missile-intercept-capability

Another research paper published by an eminent defense organization in New Delhi states :

"Responding to Pakistan’s procurement of the M-9 and M-11 ballistic missiles from China the Indian government bought six batteries of Russian S-300 surface-to air missiles (SAMs) in August 1995 to protect New Delhi and other cities."

http://www.claws.in/administrator/uploaded_files/1262760881MP_15___111209.pdf

Everything said it's essential to remember that these pics were not taken by the blog owner but are rather pics that the Armed Forces allow a few accredited photographers to take who in turn share them with the media ( as in this case ) .

Also , the armed forces will not give full access to any private individual to film the entire exercises and will restrict there movement to a few areas only .

For example , a SU 30 MKI crashed during these exercises due to a bird hit but no photographer was allowed near the site .

SOC a question for you.

I often hear from Indian friends that a Ramjet SAM like Akash with a PESA radar and using COmmand Guidance is better then BUK-M2 like system , as Ramjet is propelled all the way to the target and does not loose energy till the end game.

While system like BUK-M2 using solid propellent burn for few second in total and most of the time it is coasting and does not retain end game energy against manouvering target.

For eg Akash with ramjet propulsion with advertised range of 28 Km would still be very energetic at 28 Km against manouvering target while BUK-M2 with an advertised range of 45 Km would be loosing most energy at the last few km and wont be effective , so solid propellent range advantage is not much an advantage.

How true is it because I do not fine Europe , US or Russia pursuing a Ramjet based solution for SAM but has stuck with solid propellent and these days dual pulse motor gives end game energy advantage too.

Also would like your view on Command Guidance Mode Guidance versus SARH mode which is better choice and why ?

SOC wrote:

medo wrote:Isn't MEADS practically dead project? As I know, US, Germany and Italy will only fund development, to have technology for future projects, but not buy it.

US is apparently funding it until 2014, with Patriot upgrades being the cheaper way to go for now.  Germany and Italy still both want the system, and are funding development, but are looking for others to get involved and for their budgets to be able to support procurement.  The problem appears to just be money right now.

I agree. But If US decides to go with the Patriot modernization (which I think It will), MEADS is as good as dead because its price will skyrocket and Germany (which is slashing its defense forces considerably) and Italy (which already bought 5 batteries of SAMP-T) wont order that much.

I personally like MEADS project much better than Patriot and I think it would be a good thing for US forces to move to a next level but it would cost a tanker load of cash and US is also slashing growth of its budget so I think they will rather opt for modernization.

Perhaps Poland could save the day but that remains to be seen. Even some Baltic states who still live in great fear of their Easter neighbor might buy MEADS.

Viktor wrote:Depends on how they do the radar.  That's what makes Patriot and THAAD take more time to set up.  It's also what makes the S-300P take up to an hour if they have to use the 40V6 masts.

Yup and in line with that thinking we can see what a great job Russians did with 64N6. Its a 5 minute system  

SOC wrote:Completely true, but I don't see why they couldn't also incorporate the SM-2 if the capability was desired.  Probably won't though, it appears that MEADS is the Patriot successor.

Yup, Patriots are already in place in Poland and Turkey. Its only a matter of time when will we see it in other countries too. US has (correct me if Im wrong) unused batteries of Patriot system in US (some are active but huge portion is not) and those can be delivered across the sea.

Still Russians value mobility of their systems above all and Im sure that whatever comes at the end, time necessary to deploy S-500 will be many times shorter than any SM-3.

medo wrote:Isn't MEADS practically dead project? As I know, US, Germany and Italy will only fund development, to have technology for future projects, but not buy it.

Germany on itself is having huge difficulties financing Armed forces. They slashed numbers considerably just recently and the price of Typhoons skyrocketed so they may decide to buy less MEADS too. That remains to be seen.

Austin wrote:SOC a question for you.

I often hear from Indian friends that a Ramjet SAM like Akash with a PESA radar and using COmmand Guidance is better then BUK-M2 like system , as Ramjet is propelled all the way to the target and does not loose energy till the end game.

There are many factors by which you must compare air defense systems and all of them must be taken in consideration not just one  

Anyway BUK-M2 is not in the same league with Akash although Akash is a very good modernization of KUB system (4 guidance channels for targets and 8 for missiles per battery). I think from KUB family only KUB-M4 has more guidance channels but at the same time Akash has some drawbacks too.

Austin wrote:While system like BUK-M2 using solid propellant burn for few second in total and most of the time it is coasting and does not retain end game energy against manouvering target.

Well thats not how it works, when determining engagement probability in range and altitude same rules should apply for all air defense systems dont you agree.

So while both missiles of BUK and Akash have more range than cited 45 and 27 km in distance at 45 and 27 km distance both missiles are able to achieve cited kill probability.

They both can score a kill even after given range but kill probability will drop so sharply that kill can be achieved at only slow moving / non-maneuverable targets.

Because of what has been said there is no point for you to try to further derail BUK-M2 missiles in comparison with Akash ones because one is ramjet and

other has solid propellant. You have kill probability at ranges given by manufacturer. Still, it would be great to check Akash declared kill probabilities

according to Russian standard at Ashuluk

Well, they DID move from ramjet Kub to solid-fuel Bu so presumably the trade off was worth it.

Viktor wrote:both missiles are able to achieve cited kill probability.

You are the discounting the fact my old friend that kill probability is target specific . Those "cited" figures are mostly against an adversary that is defenseless .

The Growler aircraft is specifically designed to jam systems like the BUK M2 ( not sure what this Akash is) .
So the chances that NATO aircrafts will fly in hostile territories without escort jamming are the stuff wet dreams are made off . Reality is a lot different .

Austin wrote:I often hear from Indian friends that a Ramjet SAM like Akash with a PESA radar and using COmmand Guidance is better then BUK-M2 like system , as Ramjet is propelled all the way to the target and does not loose energy till the end game.

While system like BUK-M2 using solid propellent burn for few second in total and most of the time it is coasting and does not retain end game energy against manouvering target.

For eg Akash with ramjet propulsion with advertised range of 28 Km would still be very energetic at 28 Km against manouvering target while BUK-M2 with an advertised range of 45 Km would be loosing most energy at the last few km and wont be effective , so solid propellent range advantage is not much an advantage.

How true is it because I do not fine Europe , US or Russia pursuing a Ramjet based solution for SAM but has stuck with solid propellent and these days dual pulse motor gives end game energy advantage too.

Look at the Kub. Missile max speed is about 600 m/s. Rocket booster burn time is 4.1 seconds, sustainer ramjet burn time is 22.5 seconds. That means you've got power for roughly 27 seconds. If it was going at max speed instantly at launch (it isn't, it only gets to Mach 1.5 after the booster is done, for example), that'd give it a total flight time to max range of 23 km of 38.3 seconds. That's at minimum a full 11 seconds, or roughly 30% of your useable flight time, that you have no power.

Now, Akash does have power all the way to intercept, but it's max velocity is no more than 700 m/s. Compared to the Kub, it should possess more kinetic energy at endgame, which can be translated into maneuvering capacity.

Buk-M2, on the other hand, has a velocity of over 1200 m/s. The problem is that I don't know the burn times for the two-phase motor in the 9M317. They might be in one of these books or files but I haven't found them yet. If I knew those I'd know when the motor burnt out, and could figure the kinetic energy at burnout, and go from there to see how much it retains at max range. However, due to the much higher peak velocity, I don't think the difference will be anything overly significant anyway.

Austin wrote:Also would like your view on Command Guidance Mode Guidance versus SARH mode which is better choice and why ?

Depends on the platform. For a fighter aircraft, a SARH missile is laughable in the 21st Century. For a SAM, it's not a big deal. The advantage to SARH over command is that the missile is constantly getting a better, more accurate idea of where the target is as it closes in. Since the missile is "guiding itself" insofar as it needs no off-board inputs, you can also use a cheaper radar system. A command system has to have a second function for missile tracking in order to tell it where to go, and this is usually a separate, smaller array. If it uses a separate signal (common), then you've just doubled the number of signals your SAM is radiating. Which means an enemy has twice as many signals to try and screw with, because if you cancel either one the missile is a miss. One of the CIA EW systems used in the A-12 was meant to screw up the command link to the S-75 if I remember right. Worked ridiculously well, too.

Viktor wrote:Yup and in line with that thinking we can see what a great job Russians did with 64N6. Its a 5 minute system

...and is ridiculously awesome.

NickM wrote:not sure what this Akash is

India's attempt to reinvent the Kub SAM system.

NickM wrote:The Growler aircraft is specifically designed to jam systems like the BUK M2

...and systems like the Buk-M2 and a host of others have these nice home-on-jam modes. Growler is a waste of money anyway. An unaerodynamic, high-RCS, emitting and therefore extremely visible platform could've been made for a lot less money.

NickM wrote:So the chances that NATO aircrafts will fly in hostile territories without escort jamming are the stuff wet dreams are made off .

Irrelevant, as they always do that anyway, regardless of perceived threat environment or friendly system capability. Hence EA-6Bs operating to support F-117s and B-2s over the FRY. You're just assuming that whatever EW systems NATO fields will work 100% of the time, which is as stupid as assuming the FSU SAMs will be 100% effective. The EW/ECM/ECCM environment is ridiculously fluid and constantly adapting and readapting itself to new developments. Digital systems these days also mean they're a hell of a lot easier to upgrade with the latest material.

SOC wrote:India's attempt to reinvent the Kub SAM system.

Funny how these Hindoos steal everything and yet pretend to hold the high moral ground on everything .

SOC wrote:...and systems like the Buk-M2 and a host of others have these nice home-on-jam modes. Growler is a waste of money anyway.

The ALQ-99 tactical jamming system on board the Growler cannot be locked on by the BUK M2 . And now they are becoming more potent with the Next Generation Jammer .

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_08_2013_p0-595077.xml

To effectively lock on / jam such jammers one needs to have indepth knowledge of Electronic Warfare in general and jammers in particular . Russia fell behind in this race to the UK & US . So they may advertise such features on the BUK M 2 ,i.e home-on-jam modes but they know themselves it doesn't work . Have they ever explained how "home-on-jam modes" operates in real time ?

BUK M2 can easily be taken out by attack helos armed with precision guided missiles like PARS 3LR .

The 10µ-technology employed in both the gunner's sight and the seeker head and its technical layout and design, unambiguous target identification and designation at a range of 7,000 m is enabled . Is there a Russian equivalent to the 10µ-technology ? Last heard ... there ain't any .

The Akash is more like a modern day Kub , it has slightly better speed , a little more range and has got a phased array radar thats developed indigenous by us , its really our first attempt to develop something that is resonable state of art by todays standard and is mass product cost effective SAM with high tactical mobility and veratility on platforms deployed.

I had the opportunity to speak with Akash SAM developer and in its trial it has been tested against all the EW equipment that IAF has and its Rajendra Phased Radar has known to be ressiliant against it , so its a good deal for Indian Armed Force viz our potential foes.

A big advantage for us with Akash system being mostly indiginous we can upgrade it inhouse and dont have to pay any one for upgrade or pay for making any changes , And and improvement is on the anvil too

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/06/exclusive-akash-mk-ii-sam-to-fly-in-two.html

as Ramjet is propelled all the way to the target and does not loose energy till the end game.

A ramjet engine is a jet engine and therefore succeptable to flameouts... a rocket engine is not. Whether the missile could restart its engine is unknown but it would certainly not be able to restart during high g manouvers...

BUK M2 can easily be taken out by attack helos armed with precision guided missiles like PARS 3LR

Hahahaha... TRIGAT-LR? How would a helo with 7km range missiles get past Tunguska-M vehicles from the early 1980s with 8km range SAMS to use these wonderful ATGMs?

More importantly how would it get past Tunguska-M1 from 2004 with 10km range SAMs or the soon to be adopted Pantsir-S1 with 20km range SAMs?

it doesnt flameout in typical sense -it is fuel rich solid propellant ,so you always have propulsion.

it doesnt flameout in typical sense -it is fuel rich solid propellant ,so you always have propulsion.

To create combustion they need to get the mix of air and fuel right... with solid fuelled rockets the mix is already right because they were mixed that way. With any sort of jet engine with an external air supply including all ramjets and turbojets and turbofans etc etc the steady supply of oxygen is regulated by air intakes and various mechanisms to ensure the right amount of air and the right amount of fuel are combined where they are burnt... and with any jete engine if, during a hard turn the air coming into the intake suddenly rapidly drops there will be too much fuel and not enough oxygen and the burning of fuel will cease... called a flameout... to restart you need a clean airflow... and without thrust you might not be in a position to recover from a flat spin or the hard turn the missile is currently performing might not be able to be eased off from to allow a restart attempt.

Regrading the towed version of Antey-2500 shown here, any idea what is is it called (previous fully mobile wheeled proposal was called S-300VMK i think), and what type is the truck, is it indian by any chance ?

india refused s-300v in the 90s as inferior and didnt purchase it.
s-300v untill recently (venecuela)had no exports...