It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India's Akash air defence system : The Indian Patriot

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
i dunno ch1466

on the one hand i agree with you that India should focus on development of its human resources instead of developing new weapons of mass destruction (to use the invougue term
)

but on the other hand i think it is not half as bad as u make it out to be. Infact i think that your post was quite out of character (from the few posts by you that i have read so far) It tool the US long enough to get itself on the right track to develpment, and you have to give India that much benefit of the doubt. There never has been and never will be a society like India with its peculiar and unique set of problems. It is by far the toughest country in the world to govern, and hostile neighbours do not help the matter.

Coming back to the akash issue. My take on it is that it is only a stepping stone for India to develop the technology successfully further. Whether they should be developing the technology at all is again a matter of debate




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Now i dunno which in madrassa urmomma158 and ch1466 were classmates in .... but one thing that's pretty clear that they share the same madrassa logic (in addition to being self confessed ORACLES) with their other al-keeda infidel cohorts in bringing up doctored non-issues about literacy, population and making racist reamrks instead of addressing issues about the missile in question.

Now getting to the point, the Akash is not better than the Arrow-2 or the PAC-3. It is only a part of India's envisioned layered missile defence plan.

The real cracker missile of this layered structure is the 100km ranged Prithvi-AD missile that is currently being worked on by RCI, a DRDO subsidary and will start testing later this year.
Here :

The Research Centre Imarat (RCI) in Hyderabad, a premier defense laboratory that produces the Agni and Prithvi missile systems and is under the administrative control of DRDO, has been developing a system since early 2003 that would have a range of 100 kilometers.

A DRDO scientist said the previous National Democratic Alliance government was so impressed with the RCI proposal that $444.4 million was allotted in June 2003 to complete the indigenous air defense system by 2008.

Vijay Kumar Saraswat, RCI director, said Feb 10 that the system RCI is working on will be superior to the Patriot-2 and Russia’s S-300 PMU, and will be ready to enter service by 2008. Saraswat claimed the system will have a mobile launcher carrying three surface-to-air, solid-fuel missiles, equipped with directional warheads.

He said the unnamed system will begin flight trials in mid-2006. RCI will carry out about 10 flights before deploying it with the Indian defense forces.

The DRDO scientist said the indigenous air defense system will have a mission control system that will conduct target acquisition, classification and track estimation, among other functions.

He said another major element is the active phased-array radar system purchased from Israel. Called Sword Fish, the system was purchased in early 2004 for $50 million and is undergoing trials at Hasan in Karnataka state.

Once the air defense system is operational, the DRDO scientist said, RCI will integrate it with other defense systems via satellite links and a secure digital data link that will enable it to track and transmit data up to a range of 1,000 kilometers. •


Article >>

In addition,

French defence major, Thales has offered an across the board technology transfer to India in state-of-art radar knowhow to help New Delhi move speedily towards bridging the gaps in its air space coverage, specially in detecting low flying intrusions.

www.outlookindia.com...

And perhaps you racist trolls have a reading of this as well >> www.abovetopsecret.com...&singlepost=1555289

Also, there is co-development of a new Barak-2 ADS with Israel as well ..

India, Israel tie up on next-gen Barak missile defence system

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 6: In an indisputable sign that Indo-Israeli defence ties have matured, the governments of both countries have signed their first-ever joint weapons development contract to design and produce the Barak-II next-generation air defence missiles.

The Barak-II will be jointly developed by the Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI), the Barak programme’s secondary integrator Rafael and by the Hyderabad-based Defence Research & Development Laboratories (DRDL), with the two countries splitting the approximately $330 million kick-start investment.

DRDO sources told Express, ‘‘It will be based on the original Barak, but we will work together for longer range, a more refined seeker, a long-range target-tracking system, better downlinking capabilities and possibly a new propulsion system and payload capacity.’’ In a phased manner, the Barak-I and the Barak-II missiles will replace the ageing Russian OSA-M and Volna RZ-31 missiles. Sources pointed to the inherent advantage of the Barak family’s digital systems over the analog computers that guide the Russian missiles.

The new variant, to be developed over three years, will be built for a targeting range of at least 50 km.

Full Article >>

Mind you, india has several batteries of S-300's in its various versions that were purchased in 1996, 1999, 2002 .... the Prithvi-AD must surely be better. Janes infact quotes an Indian Official as saying the the Prithvi AD is as technologically advanced as the THAAD itself.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]


wow you really make me laugh it may be technolgoically advanced but the THAAD has a longer range and altitude reach endo and exo atmospheric ability www.army-technology.com...

MEADs has a range of over 190 miles since it uses PAC 3 missiles which will be over 190 miles



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Barak sucks 50km!?!?!? the SM extended range has a range of 190-370 km
en.wikipedia.org...
Sm family Sm 6 has range OTH range is classifed though www.raytheon.com...
please dont kid with these short range systems do u have a 3 stage system boost,midcourse,and terminal phase?!?!?!?


[edit on 9-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
hey urmomma158. have u ever thought that for Indian air defence the range makes absolutely no difference! India shares its broders with its adverseries, and 100 km is more than enough. Infact it is just about the max range that can be utilised. Any more and you would be shooting down the missle in enemy territory. What India needs is extremely fast reaction time. Which the current Western Systems lack.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
lol! nice one true u need fast reaction time but what youdon tknow is this is only a terminal phae interceptor its part of a 3 layered defense plus it'd be good to shoot it down over enemy territory the agressor gets hurt with his own nukes they're the most vulnerable in the boost phas exactly when you when you want to strike kpx.redirectme.net...

read under PAC 3 its under alphabetical order it says fast reaction time dont u think the MEADS and THAAD will be able to do that especially since they're newer systems the actual site is this i had to use a proxy because i was at work and sites are blocked there so heres the original site www.fas.org... for example if u wanted to intercpt a chinese missile in a nuclear crisis longer range i what u need the debris will land over thier own territory the missile defnse needs of both countrues are diffent the US facues long range threats ditant from the homeland which is different from your neeedsi agree over that but i disagrree over the need for long range because it gives u more range to intercept it and gives u better chance of stopping the missle or aircraft

lol 1 these smiley faces r awesome


[edit on 10-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Stop highlighting your post. It shows how weak the articles you supply is since you have to highlight the bits you want people to read instead of them making their own opinoins.

Why dont you just cut and paste bits of articles and label them your own



Another *great* excuse to troll again


A result of dented self esteem 'cause other people stole your exhalted thunder for India-bashing ??


[edit on 13-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158read under PAC 3 its under alphabetical order it says fast reaction


...but not fast enough for India's needs.



India is not impressed with the PAC-3 missile unit offered with the two-tier US anti-missile defence system, on the grounds that it is slow for the very low reaction period in the sub-continent

Link


And our next door trigger happy dudes think so as well ...


President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Monday Pakistan has the potential and the missile capability to meet any challenge anywhere from the world.

Responding to a query vis-a-vis the chances of induction of Patriot Missile System in the Indian forces, Musharraf said the probable acquisition of Patriot Missile System by India was not a concern for Pakistan for neither the system had high accuracy kill-ratio nor the capability to neutralize the effectiveness of Pakistan’s missile inventory. Speaking about the possible induction of Patriot batteries as a professional soldier, the president established Pakistan had the technology to penetrate even if India acquired the Patriot System from the United States. Explaining his point, the president said the Patriots had a kill-probability of around 40 per cent, which implied 60 per cent of the fired missiles could sneak through. Secondly, he maintained, the Scud missiles fired by Iraq evaded Patriots in the Gulf War.

Moreover, he said while explaining the technical features of the Patriot System, the system had been developed during the Cold War era. It had a specific response time, keeping in view of the distance between the two Cold War adversaries. It has a response time of 15 to 18 minutes for locating and shooting down the incoming missile. In Pakistan’s case, the response time of the system would not be appropriate for the capability Pakistan had would not give the opponents more than five to six minutes.

link

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by urmomma158read under PAC 3 its under alphabetical order it says fast reaction


...but not fast enough for India's needs.



India is not impressed with the PAC-3 missile unit offered with the two-tier US anti-missile defence system, on the grounds that it is slow for the very low reaction period in the sub-continent

Link


And our next door trigger happy dudes think so as well ...


President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Monday Pakistan has the potential and the missile capability to meet any challenge anywhere from the world.

Responding to a query vis-a-vis the chances of induction of Patriot Missile System in the Indian forces, Musharraf said the probable acquisition of Patriot Missile System by India was not a concern for Pakistan for neither the system had high accuracy kill-ratio nor the capability to neutralize the effectiveness of Pakistan’s missile inventory. Speaking about the possible induction of Patriot batteries as a professional soldier, the president established Pakistan had the technology to penetrate even if India acquired the Patriot System from the United States. Explaining his point, the president said the Patriots had a kill-probability of around 40 per cent, which implied 60 per cent of the fired missiles could sneak through. Secondly, he maintained, the Scud missiles fired by Iraq evaded Patriots in the Gulf War.

Moreover, he said while explaining the technical features of the Patriot System, the system had been developed during the Cold War era. It had a specific response time, keeping in view of the distance between the two Cold War adversaries. It has a response time of 15 to 18 minutes for locating and shooting down the incoming missile. In Pakistan’s case, the response time of the system would not be appropriate for the capability Pakistan had would not give the opponents more than five to six minutes.

link

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]


o wow anyways wat good would such a system do aginst the latest cruise missiles prliferating around the world cruise missiles are harder to detect since they travel very low bleow a radr horizon,use terrain masking 9radar waves travel in a straight line terrain can mask its aprroach, and some can be facted 9 think F117's) and can carry nuke warheads. ALso u seem to forget since thesea ir defenses have short ranges they are vulnerable to weasel aircraft with anti radiation missiles. I do agree u need a faster eaction time but also good range for self defense against weasel aircraft which would be carried out during the attack. it all comes down to reaction time and range. when criticizing the patriot think before you speak its also based on an old system cionstantly upgraded and is still formidable today. agreed u need faster reaction time but range is also important.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Yes i agree too. But IMHO 100km is sufficient (Prithvi AD).

Fortunately, the US is offering more advanced components with the PAC-3(sourced from THAAD systems according to internet sources) .


India is not impressed with the PAC-3 missile unit offered with the two-tier US anti-missile defence system, on the grounds that it is slow for the very low reaction period in the sub-continent, and therefore, the Pentagon will demonstrate more advanced technologies when defence minister Pranab Mukherjee visits the country.

Officials said that Pranab would be accompanied by defence secretary Ajai Vikram Singh, the deputy chiefs of the three services, DRDO scientists, and the top defence PSU management, with the idea to gauge technology transfer possibilities with the offered US anti-missile defence systems.

Besides more advanced units than PAC-3, the US is offering mid-air jamming systems.


>same source<


However IMHO the Arrow-2 is the best of the lot and India must look to acquire batteries of this, preferably with tech transfer.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
It is also noteworthy that India has sought the THAAD from the US and analyst speculation about this is positive. The US and India agreed to co-operate on missile defence in the recent declarations...


Missile defense cooperation is also cited in the Joint Statement. The United States has had the world’s largest and most technically proficient missile defense R&D program for many years; it is doubtful the United States can learn much from India in this field of military science, though India will benefit from U.S. knowledge. Basing U.S. missile defense radars or interceptors on Indian soil would not be of much benefit to the United States (in the way that such facilities in Japan, Great Britain, or Poland are useful), since with a few exotic exceptions the trajectories of ballistic missiles heading to targets of U.S. interest do not pass close to Indian airspace. Finally, it is possible that the administration expects India to purchase U.S. missile defense systems like THAAD to protect India from Pakistani and Chinese missile attack. Buying such defense systems would benefit U.S. industry and, through economies of scale, subsidize DOD’s own purchases of missile defenses

link

also indicated here


There was no word on whether the Israeli-American Arrow THAAD missile defense system, which India has previously sought, would also be approved, though Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee did express India's position that all technology restrictions should be dropped.

link

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
A result of dented self esteem 'cause other people stole your exhalted thunder for India-bashing ??


India-bashing?


Trying to make a excuse like that? where did i mention india in my post

"Stop highlighting your post. It shows how weak the articles you supply is since you have to highlight the bits you want people to read instead of them making their own opinoins.

Why dont you just cut and paste bits of articles and label them your own"


Using your ethnicity as a cover for a argument ......



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Stealth & Chinawhite, you'll need to stop squabbling over 'non-issues'. Seriously, both of you can post very informative and well laid out posts but then you'll start taking shots at each other and the whole thread degenerates into a shouting match. Please both of you are very knowledgable (much more so than me atleast
) in this area, so try and be more constructive.

urmmoma158, your posts seem good but if i may say something here. Use proper punctuations. Your posts right now, though they might be good, make for very difficult reading. If you do not punctuate, then i know that a lot of people would simply skip past your posts and that would be a shame.

Getting back to the topic, true range is important and that the Patriot is a very good missile defence system, but I do not believe that it meets the unique and specific requirements of Indian Air Defence. I do not think there is any 1 system out there that does. Hence the decision by the Indian defence establishment to try and develop an indeginious sytem. I know it might seem like re-inventing the wheel to many people, but India has to take into account the long-term reliability and sustainability of any system it decides to employ.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
chinawhite and ch1466 are absolutely correect.

Akash, SA-6, Kh-41 Moskit, they all share the same base.

Upgraded SA-6 carrier with modern electronics package fits India's SAM criteria perfectly. US SAMs are painfully slow, Russian SAMs are pricey because unless the buyer is ready to shell out for the whole package they market heavily stripped down versions, so domestically produced upgrade is a logical solution.

Mach 3.5 is to slow for modern SAM, Mach 7+ is the current scale, but again in the case of India, as mentioned before in other posts, it's just not as detrimental as response time.

A great achievement for India, good going guys.

There is nothing new or groundbreaking about it thought, just a well though out, cost effective solution, and if our DOD used such basic guidelines for our own defense instead of stuffing the pockets of defense industry with our tax dollars, we would have had capable SAM networks of our own long time ago at 1/1000th of the cost.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Mach 3.5 is to slow for modern SAM, Mach 7+ is the current scale, but again in the case of India, as mentioned before in other posts, it's just not as detrimental as response time.


Hmm ok, which SAM's travel at Mach 7 ? There should be a whole plethora if this is the current scale



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
Stealth & Chinawhite, you'll need to stop squabbling over 'non-issues'. Seriously, both of you can post very informative and well laid out posts but then you'll start taking shots at each other and the whole thread degenerates into a shouting match. Please both of you are very knowledgable (much more so than me atleast
) in this area, so try and be more constructive.

urmmoma158, your posts seem good but if i may say something here. Use proper punctuations. Your posts right now, though they might be good, make for very difficult reading. If you do not punctuate, then i know that a lot of people would simply skip past your posts and that would be a shame.

Getting back to the topic, true range is important and that the Patriot is a very good missile defence system, but I do not believe that it meets the unique and specific requirements of Indian Air Defence. I do not think there is any 1 system out there that does. Hence the decision by the Indian defence establishment to try and develop an indeginious sytem. I know it might seem like re-inventing the wheel to many people, but India has to take into account the long-term reliability and sustainability of any system it decides to employ.


i really got to work on puctuation and cut down on th e racism thanks for the tip though i nver considered reaction time but wahtur missile ssytems need is faster sppeds instead of mach 3.5 mach 5 is better> keep those irbms just incase you never know when u need em (china and pakistan)



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Max range is only 25km? That's not a lot. But I guess it does help a bit having the radar separate from the launch platforms.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by iskander
Mach 3.5 is to slow for modern SAM, Mach 7+ is the current scale, but again in the case of India, as mentioned before in other posts, it's just not as detrimental as response time.


Hmm ok, which SAM's travel at Mach 7 ? There should be a whole plethora if this is the current scale



i don`t actually know of any

www.army-technology.com...

thats the fastest i know of - and its a kinetic kill missile as well



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I know the aksah is not a copy but it is indeed based on the SA-6. That cant be debated.
I agree. The link is definate. Having said that the Akash is a "new" system far more capable than the SA-6.

But the original post claims it is the poor man's Patriot - which is slightly over-sell. Even India realises that it needs S-300 in addition to the Akash - the Akash is far shorter ranged than the Patriot/S-300 class weapons and in operating terms, is closer to the SA-17 system.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by iskander
Mach 3.5 is to slow for modern SAM, Mach 7+ is the current scale, but again in the case of India, as mentioned before in other posts, it's just not as detrimental as response time.


Hmm ok, which SAM's travel at Mach 7 ? There should be a whole plethora if this is the current scale



i don`t actually know of any

www.army-technology.com...

thats the fastest i know of - and its a kinetic kill missile as well



sorry guys', rouge1 is on my ignore list, so If somebody does not quote his senseless crap I'm not always able to set things right. I swear it's like cleaning up after a messy child.

"First airborne trials of the rocket which configuration was close to the S-500 proved that it could not withstand the G-force generate in flight. After numerous trials the shape of the missile was changed in to the “bearing cone” scheme (the same was chosen by Americans for Sprint and later Israelis for their Hetz). The velocity of 1700 m/s (Mach 5) was considered satisfying for combating aerodynamic targets and short ranged ground-ground missiles and 2400 m/s for intercepting tactical ballistic missiles (Mach 7). Average speeds at full range were to be 1200 and 1800 m/s correspondingly."

hudi2.republika.pl...



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
sorry guys', rouge1 is on my ignore list, so If somebody does not quote his senseless crap I'm not always able to set things right. I swear it's like cleaning up after a messy child.


Hmm, I'm not the one making statements which I can't back up
I know why you've ignored me because I prove many of your statements either embellished or wrong. Hence why you've ignored me, like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. Anyway, my posts aren't for your benefit, it's so people aren't deived by your lies.

"First airborne trials of the rocket which configuration was close to the S-500 proved that it could not withstand the G-force generate in flight. After numerous trials the shape of the missile was changed in to the “bearing cone” scheme (the same was chosen by Americans for Sprint and later Israelis for their Hetz). The velocity of 1700 m/s (Mach 5) was considered satisfying for combating aerodynamic targets and short ranged ground-ground missiles and 2400 m/s for intercepting tactical ballistic missiles (Mach 7). Average speeds at full range were to be 1200 and 1800 m/s correspondingly."

hudi2.republika.pl...



Once again, which SAM's travel at mach 7 ? You vae provided no information on any SAM's which travel at Mach 7, You claim MAch 7 is the standard for modern SAM's so where are they ?

Your above quote has proved nothing, once again. You take a little information, then embellish it into something it is not. Just as well you posted the source otherwise a few people may hvae taken your word




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join