As told by the developer, the reason behind is that if the missile is slow it will miss the target and if the missile is fast it will over shoot the missile therefore it is important that through out its fight it will have same speed so that it can take out target.
India didn't attempt to copy the SA-6, it just found the general layout useful to implement a ramjet system and went ahead and developed a similar system. There is nothing in common between the two missiles in terms of materials and subsystems, though. Even the guidance is different, the Akash uses CG versus a SARH system on the SA-6. Where things get even more different is in the ground based system which after all, is the heart of any SAM system, where the Akash system is more akin to the layout of a high end SAM system like the S-300 with a PESA FCR . It also has a C3I system which automates the entire engagement system, end to end and also has a regiment/squadron level C3I getting inputs from a long range (150 km class) 3D radar. The entire system is highly mobile and comes in two different versions - one on trailers for the AF, the other on T-72 tanks for the Army.
Bottomline, this is clearly no SA-6 copy. Its a pretty unique system evolved to meet IA & IAF requirements framed for a missile in the 20-30km class, able to engage a wide variety of targets with high SSPK and also able to stand up to heavy opposition (strike packages with ARMs, EW etc). This is what led to this configuration.
The choice of ramjet was to give the missile an all the way thrust capability which was state of the art in the 1980's. Given only the Russians had a working ramjet SAM & which was also in Indian service, it was logical to evolve something that at least had the same overall layout, as it could be validated in windtunnel tests and would at least have similar baseline aerodynamic performance.
However, India's requirements meant everything went different after that. Akash uses CG as an ARH seeker was impractical, costly, and did not give adequate performance benefit. But the need for high ECCM capability led to the development of a PESA, with multi-target handling capability (2-3 missiles per target, upto 4 targets per radar) unlike the SA-6's which combined less capable systems on TELA
Similarly, the Indian requirement for the Akash to be deployed in areas where the ADGES could not support the system meant the development of an entirely new long range sensor, the 3D CAR. The automation meant that the system could be "fought" in almost all conditions without human intervention losing out to complex battle scenarios. The Akash system as far back as the late 90's began working on an all digital display system with extensive signal processing as versus even the S-300 exports at the time, which had the conventional phosphor screens.
The point is the Akash is uniquely configured to Indian service requirements of the IAF and Army, which were developed with an eye towards the future in mind. There is no other system out there with the same exact configuration for the Akash to be a copy.
Similarly, the cancelled Trishul project had a missile which looked externally like the SA-8 Gecko.
But thats where the similarities ended. The missile within was entirely different. It had a dual thrust propulsion system which was fairly radical at the time, and modern by todays standards. The Indo-Israeli LRSAM/Barak-8 project for instance uses a variant of the same technology today.
So don't go by looks but look at the doctrine, and whats within & the differences become apparent. The Akash C3I system, bar the radars was used by India to develop the Brahmos system. A lot of the technology went there. That sort of stuff is not apparent at first sight. But its what differentiates the Akash from the sort of one-to-one copies the Chinese turn out.
India has taken the harder path versus the Chinese, it tries to innovate across the board and is open about taking technological assistance where it needs to. This sort of disruptive development methodology means India's task is much harder and riskier - which mean delays and all sorts of developmental challenges. But over time, this is what will also ensure Indian developers keep innovating as versus copying as the Chinese have been doing in many systems. If China were to buy the Rafale, it would rip it off, and try to make one-to-one copies even with inferior systems. India would rather evaluate the Rafale, see what technologies it likes and work with France in a joint-IP sharing mechanism to develop something more evolved for its specific needs. I think this is a better approach than just copying. This is not to say China does not innovate. That it does, but there is a significant mindset issue of just aping what the other guy does, because then it must be good. They tend to do that a lot.
Please dont get confused in how the terms are used. Coasting is usually used for the missile when the engine has cut out & its just going ahead on the basis of the residual energy it has from the work the engine did. In the case of the Akash, the pure powered+non powered range, may indeed be greater than 25-30 km, because that is when the engine cuts out. But till 25-30 km, its fully powered. The booster takes it to ~2.5M, this would occur within the first few seconds of flight translating to several km, the sustainer then maintains the speed at 2.5M through the rest of the range (>70% based on back of the envelope estimates). The missile then uses proportional navigation algorithms to keep apace of maneuvering targets. The ability to maintain energy throughout the 25-30 km envelope is what gives the missile its high SSKP of 0.88. Basically, this is a missile which will continue following you, unlike other missiles which try to get you in the first pass, failing which, they are in the coast phase, gradually losing speed and altitude and can hence be avoided by the target. In the Akash suppose the target makes a sudden maneuver in the first few km of the chase and the missile misses, the radar can reacquire and will get the missile towards the target again as its a ramjet and still maintains energy. Of course, the ramjet cannot be throttled so missile trajectories are not as flexible as those in say a Meteor, but its still a fairly capable system.
Coming to how ramjet missiles have performed - looking at the SA-6, in the Yom Kippur war, it accounted for almost 40 kills, and in recent times, a F-16CJ over Bosnia was shot down by a SA-6. Point is the "weak point" of the SA-6 was its compromised electronics that were known to all allied forces since the Israelis captured the system.
In contrast, our Akash's have modern PESA FCRs and will be a very tough opponent for low -medium altitude targets.
From what you are saying, I gather that the 25 to 30 km range will be where the missile will be really effective. So we could have used a different propulsion system, making the missile even lighter with the same energy thourghout it's light path.
The advantage of a ramjet is it uses the oxygen in the air instead of its own oxidizer, so its actually lighter for the same sized normal missile since it is not carrying an oversized sustainer with an oxidizer component. The usual missile would have gone 25-30 km with a typical accelerate, coast, decelerate profile as versus the Akash's accelerate-sustain profile.
The other way to get similar performance is to use a dual thrust motor, with the second section kicking in for the end game engagement.
There are pros and cons to each system.
In the case of the Akash, the use of a ramjet allows for a sustained high energy missile. With a dual thrust motor, it becomes far more complex, as the missile accelerates, decelerates and then again accelerates, decelerates. Basically, remember, guidance algorithms have to cope. The guidance radar which is controlling the missile from the ground has to be constantly monitoring the missiles energy state. All this will add more complexity to the missile, which means cost, and which also means more chances of delay & even lower performance till everything gets worked out.
The ramjet method is more robust, with its only disadvantage being that a constantly high speed does not allow the missile to "slow down" to prevent overshoots. However, that is sort of a moot point with the Akash, because if it passes within 50m of the target, it will detonate, taking out the target.
Overall though, the question of weight has to be seen in context with regards to the user requirements. For the AF, the Akash replaces the SA-3 Goa , which is much larger (953KG in weight as versus 720 kg for Akash) & in fact, less mobile, because its radar units and other ground systems are static. For the Army, the Akash will replace the SA-6 regiments, and is in all likelihood, more mobile as it is now fielded on T-72 tanks (this new requirement fielded in 2002 by the Army, and developed by the DRDO by 2007).
A typical Akash battery has 4 launchers, each with 3 missiles. Thats 12 missiles at any time, ready to fire. Assuming two per target, an Akash battery can engage 6 targets, which is actually two more than the maximum a Battery Level radar can handle. So taking 3 per target, thats actually 4 per radar, which is exactly what the Rajendra can handle.
Point is the entire system is fairly well thought out & able to handle a flight package of 4 fighters, the exact sort which the IA/IAF know is usually the case. Given multiple batteries of Akash will be usually deployed to protect a vital place, the number of targets it can handle scale up & the weight per se, is not a deal breaker. An Akash squadron AF (2 batteries) can handle 8 targets at any one time, and the Akash regiment/group for the Army, can handle 16 targets (4 batteries). Given an entire squadron is usually 16 fighters (with 2 attrition reserves), its pretty much overkill.
The limitation in the above is the number of FLR/BLR, deploy more of these and the number of targets engaged, goes up.
The overall point is that the Akash, with its ramjet missile remains very potent.
A lighter missile with a more complex layout is possible (that is what the Barak-8/LRSAM is) but it will also be more expensive & come with its own issues. Cost effectiveness is a pretty important criteria.The Akash can very usefully serve the role of a relatively inexpensive missile, with a huge inventory, able to handle even complex targets with heavy ECM
It is easy enough to say that, but the physical similarities are evident. In terms of materials and subsystems, they have high commonality in the missile set. They both work on the same dynamic. Akash uses CG because they never developed a SARH seeker. The latter is superior.
Akash is in no way comparable to a high end S-300. It is more akin to the Kub missile with Buk-M1 radar set that lacks a SARH seeker. SACLOS guidance is antiquated and lacking any subtlety in passive mode. It has to continue radiating the target until interception is complete. It makes for a nice target itself and gives plenty of warning to what it is tracking. The radar set is modern thanks to Polish assistance.
It is India's attempt to replace it when the upgrade to Buk-M2 would have been a better option. The drive for indigenisation leaves much to be desired.
The choice of ramjet for such a short range missile is a waste of weight and mass. The Russians figured that out when they switched back to Buk missile set. DRDO was copying what they had and to say it evolved is an overstatement. It is an inferior design.
You can say that while I can say they went with SACLOS because they didn't have the knowledge and expertise to come up with a SARH seeker. It is no secret India's radar technology requires a lot of foreign assistance.
Yes yes, it is automated... welcome to the digital age.
Development started 30 years ago. Requirements have changed but GoI had to field at least one successful initiative started back when I was born so DRDO won't look incompetent. Not even Chinese clones are "exact" configurations of what they copied.
And why do you think DRDO gave up on a concept as simple as an improved Osa point defence SAM? Incompetence maybe?
I can go by DRDO's success record, or lack there-of, and see who they have been consulting with for technical assistance in development. Oh yes, Brahmos is so Indian when it is repackaged Yakhont that Russia won't share propulsion technology. I already stated that India doesn't clone like China, but to say they didn't try reverse engineering is disingenuous.
It has been a much harder path. The difference is the CCP provides nearly limitless resources in their attempt to clone/develop weapon systems. GoI provides a scant amount of funding and refuses to have DRDO reorganise a failed research model. India is left with no option but to go abroad and seek technical assistance. DRDO still couldn't do what China does because they don't get the resources in which to do it. When India stops the brain drain and brings their top minds into a well managed research organisation with adequate funding... you will see things change even surpassing China. Innovation certainly is better than copying... but you are still reinventing the wheel.
Armand, you are just making false claims I'm afraid. The external similarities apart, they don't have any commonality in terms of materials and subsystems. I know this because I have the Akash data right in front of me, and clearly the systems are pretty much different. Everything from the steel, to the propellant for the booster, sustainer etc has been developed inhouse with different specifications from the Russian system and tailored to local requirements. The overall missile also behaves differently.
Second, you are mistaken again when you say a SARH seeker is superior and the Akash uses CG because they never developed one. A SARH seeker is by no means guaranteed to be better than a properly implemented modern CG system. In fact, SARH systems have had a pretty lousy record in recent years against ECM. They were a solution for a bygone era when an onboard nearby receiver on the missile was thought to compensate for lack of reciever sensitivity in a radar system far away. Today's radars don't face this problem.
The Akash was originally planned to have an ARH system but it was dropped when the performance really didnt justify the investment! The missile's CG system proved accurate enough to guarantee a kill in the presence of heavy ECM in trials against the IAF, which BTW operates some of the best jammers developed locally, and sourced from a variety of sources including israel and the west!
So your claims of the Akash not having a SARH system because they couldnt develop one are wrong. Because there were never any plans to develop a SARH seeker to begin with.
Either you didnt understand what I wrote or are choosing to be obtuse. Either ways, you are mistaken.
First, S-300's also use all the way guidance and hence lack subtlety and what not. The point that you deliberately chose to ignore is that the Akash's GBAD element is far more modern than the SA-6 system and used S-300 type architecture deliberately to keep ECM resistance high and offer multi-target engagement capability. Your claims of the Akash being a SA-6 claim are hence incorrect. If the Akash were a SA-6 copy, the Indians would have copied the same layout including a simpler TELAR with simpler radar. As regards antiquated, the Akash proved itself pretty well, thanks much.
The system was put through an electronic warfare (EW) trials conducted to assess the weapon system's survivability in dense jamming environment expected in a battlefield. Multiple aerial jammers (both noise and deception) were flown simultaneously in attack from different directions on the Akash group deployed in combat pattern. Sources claim that the radars of Akash could hold track of all aerial targets despite the jammers, conclusively establishing the operation of built-in electronic counter-counter measures (ECCM) features.
Second, your claim that Polish assistance made the radar set modern is also absolutely wrong.
The Polish have nothing to do with the radar set critical to the Akash, which is the Rajendra BLR. India & PIT of Poland collaborated to develop the TRS- surveillance radar for the Akash group, and even here, the development was joint with both sides owning the IP for the hardware since both sides worked on it, and the Indian side had the additional critical additional responsibility for the signal and data processing.
This initial Indo-Polish CAR was then developed further by India into the Rohini 3D surveillance radar where even the originally jointly developed antenna, beamformer and receiver were replaced by newer systems developed by India for the production version. This modernized version was then ordered by the IAF en masse, and different variants have been made for the Army & Navy. In short, this is yet another topic you clearly know very little about. And please don't give me some copy pasted rubbish from sengupta and others of his ilk. In contrast the Polish radar has not been developed to the same level with only a few units ordered for the local forces.
In fact India today is far ahead of Poland in terms of radar technologies and even exported slotted waveguide array radar antenna from DRDO for Polish MPA radars.+
The Buk-M2 makes little to no sense for India because its a foreign system with its electronics in the hand of a foreign OEM and with limited potential for further independent upgrades. In contrast the Akash makes ideal sense for India because its baseline systems are as modern or even better, and the missile can continue to evolve or even be replaced with newer variants going forward.
India's drive for indigenization in this case has paid off in spades.
Wrong. As if the range alone of the missile decides whether ramjets should be used or otherwise. In the real world, missile design choices stem from user requirements which are based on threat profiles of the target sets. The DRDO chose the ramjet for the Akash based on what the Army and AF came up with in the IGMDP in terms of their GSQR/ASR respectively, which were best met by an air breathing missile for its target set.
The Russians design choices for their Buk are theirs to make depending on what they expected from their systems. Their Buk systems trade off more cost and complexity in terms of not spending on expensive FCRs etc by transferring the expense to more mobility and integrated TELA If they wanted more range & found the ramjet concept was limiting their choices in terms of mobility, and went back to conventional propulsion with its obvious cons, it is their choice to make based on their requirements!
Its amusing to see the circular logic that you employ. The Akash is a copy because you insist it is, and hence since it must be a copy, India must and should have copied what happened to the Buk as well. Never mind, that the fact that India ignored the development of the Buk and went on its development trajectory with the Akash and other missile systems, shows its independence. It actually punctures your claims.
You can say all that, but then I can also quite clearly say you are talking through your hat. Because, unlike you, I have the real data in front of me released by the Akash developers publicly, which trace the development of the missile and what drove their design choices.
As regards radar technology and requiring assistance, please don't make me laugh as it is absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. India was able to successfully develop far more complex seekers for the BMD program. In the world that we exist in today, India apart from China is one of the few countries with a well funded and active radar development program. Coming to foreign assistance, thanks for making the point as today there are multiple countries willing to cooperate and provide technology to India. Why, your wonderful Thales every now and then comes over to India and offers all sorts of fancy programs, and it is India which is in the driving seat as to which technology it chooses to acquire.
Pointless sarcasm, and that too deliberately misconstruing the point. Is it really that hard to expect any sort of mature response from you. The point made was simple. That in contrast to the SA-6, the Akash system from day one was designed to be fully automated, which punctures your claims of the missile being a SA-6 copy. And also that the C3I system was of a sufficient grade that it formed the bedrock of Indian tactical SSM efforts, with programs like the Brahmos using the same.
Sorry Armand, that sort of outright dishonesty won't fly. Your debating tactics, are getting more and more silly.
First, you have no clue of anything re: Indian requirements.
Second, GOI did not have to do anything of the sort to assist DRDO or the like and nor did requirements change. They just let the program be & it was approved only after it cleared IAF trials for which the IAF ordered no less than 8 squadrons. After that, when the Ground based systems cleared Army trials, the Army ordered two regiments. Its actually pathetic that you had to run down a successful program in order to somehow win a net argument, when the reality is that the program has been successful, met requirements and hence has record orders.
I don't particularly care how you lot do things in France, but in India, whereas the MOD can at best continue funding to keep a program running, orders are not placed for series production on local programs unless the product meets stated criteria.
The Army & AF do not release orders unless the weapon is perfected & even then, as series production continues, the first few batches go through user trials again to even iron out teething troubles. That you don't know this, shows you really know little about Indian development.
And the Rafale program was launched many years after I was born, and France has been struggling to field it, and your PM goes around hat in hand, looking for exports! So I guess that is because, judging by your standards, that was done because Dassault need not look incompetent.
Was the incompetence at their end or at yours, when you don't have the foggiest idea about the Trishul system and what its ground based control system and guidance were? I mean, I get it that you think that your debating tactics are pretty smart and what not, but frankly after all this....its just silly to ask to be spoonfed in turn..
Armand, you don't have the foggiest idea about either DRDO's success record or even India's successes or not for that matter. Judging by your posts on Indian & Russian military technology, I can even point out that apart from playing up French kit, any sort of critical evaluation is not your forte.
And another thing, your deliberately obnoxious and overly aggressive debating style is neither impressive & nor does it present you in a positive light. It does bring to mind however, how lousy the attitudes of some French vendors has been in deals with India, and which is why India developed a burgeoning relationship with Israel. More cost effective & more sanity in terms of understanding customer requirements. So enough please. Ask questions if you must, but kindly ditch the tough guy act.
If I were to get into how great French military technology has been & your record in warfare, you'll be hiding your head.
Brahmos is a repackaged Yakhont? Enough already. About the only thing common between the Yakhont system & the Brahmos system, is the fact that the airframe of both missiles & the propulsion is the same. The rest is entirely different, including the Indian made nav-attack package in the missile itself, to the entirely different C3I system, FCS and launchers developed specifically for the Brahmos program by India. Which is why Russia is selling the Yakhont and not the Brahmos as India does not wish to export critical tech developed for the Brahmos.
And who says Russia won't share propulsion technology? Did the Russians call you up to let you know that? Pillai - the head of Brahmos Corp itself - has gone on record stating that India never bothered to ask for the propulsion tech of the Brahmos when the deal was signed, but that if it wants, it is on the table. India & Russia are anyways working on the next gen Brahmos propulsion with a scramjet, with design centers both in India & Russia.
India doesn't do reverse engineering like China does, and that is a fact. And that is because reverse engineered products will not meet user staff requirements and also because reverse engineering violates IP, making joint ventures hard.
The so called limitless resources of China go into hugely inefficient black holes of multiple institutes kept alive for jobs programs and the lack of technology access via joint development has meant that fancy exteriors aside, many chinese systems lack truly competitive subystems.
India "reinventing the wheel" and learning what a wheel is, is far better than buying overpriced ripoffs from other countries, whether it be arty shells from russia or mirage 2000 upgrades from france. Ultimately a nation has to develop its own path to success, India is well on that path. The size and scale of what it has achieved on a limited budget also bodes well for efficiency at least as far as R&D is concerned. As far as manufacturing is concerned, the entry of the private sector into that space has now been cleared and that too will pick up. Unlike Europe, India is not going to be slashing its defence budgets anytime, or go around looking for joint ownership of its military assets. The spend on defence development and production will only go up & lead to successes over the long term. As far as India is concerned, I really don't see much of a concern the way things are developing & rapidly at that. On the other hand, if you in France want to keep any semblance of parity vis a vis earlier capabilities, do take a look at the cost of your systems, the labour costs baked in, and the increasingly untenable pan-european competition. The Americans & Israelis are eating you out of home & hearth in many erstwhile home markets, and it won't get any easier going forward.
Should quote that in bold and caps. It is really upto the Indian defence staff establishment to ingrain this into their DNA. The AF and the Navy have been doing this to an extent but the Army seems to be lacking. Great example is the Tatra debacle - could we not have asked Tata Motors & L&T to come up with a better cheaper vehicle?
Missile system is a niche market product and imported hardware are normally degraded or outdated technology,like the R-27 missile, the performance of exported version of this missile is not comparable to to the one Russia use for its defence forces,plus we have to pay premium price for a CBU import with clauses and end user agreements, a domestic try is appreciated, technological know how if available should be earned either through $$, R&D including imitation trails or reverse engineering.
A domestic version is better then an equivalent alternative available in the market.
just add to what payeng has said, everyone knows foreign product, plus manufacture does not share source code, thefore enemy is ready against that product. For domestic product we can change source code quickly, as per our requirement, we are not dependent on any country.
Unless you are on the development team, you are not going to have access to alloys, composition and components so quit blowing smoke.
Kub did really well in Georgia, NATO couldn't even find them in Serbia. Command guided missiles have been pretty useless as demonstrated over Libya. For a medium-long range intercept method it is horrible. For SHORAD/point defence it is an acceptable system. If you think SARH is lousy against ECM, how lousy do you think a missile with beam riding guidance is going to do?
Still seems like it is considering it is a horrible guidance for medium range SAMs.
S-300 uses TVM guidance and has Western governments scared shitless. It is NOT a beam rider like Akash. The complexity of the GBAD element has little effect on its engagement method. It still has to point a flashlight at the target all the way to intercept. Being able to engage more targets doesn't make it ECM resistant, you just expend more loads that miss and expose your position. I said it was an attempt to copy the Kub, I didn't say it was succesfull. Modern technologies had to be procured abroad.
That link holds nothing of interest to this discussion. It is a press release about the order.
TWas it? All I know it was shooting down drones without ECM and I don't think India has any drones with ECM onboard to test.
That's a joke considering Akash wouldn't be operating without them.
It makes little sense that India doesn't make it, but when you have to go abroad for radar technology you might as well license produce a superior system. Buk-M2 is superior to Akash in every way it makes little sense to evolve an obsolete missile when you can buy modern ones now.
Really? Aren't you the world's largest arms importer growing to nearly 80% of the procurement budget? Aren't you one of the world's smallest exporters among major nations?
What is the purpose of a ramjet? To sustain high speeds for extended ranges. Not really the best choice for a rather short range SAM. DRDO chose what it could produce. As we are seeing with Astra, they are having difficulty developing propulsion systems.
Why is it the Russians, actually Soviets, made the choice to go back to rocket propulsion? Why do all other SAMs in the world use rocket propulsion? Because they want a lighter missile with more range. They didn't choose rocket propulsion for the obvious reason it wasn't developed, as demonstrated by Astra.
Not really, it shows a lack of ability of DRDO to take the next step in development also having to seek outside help to complete the project.
Oh really... do share!
Please don't make me laugh... remember a little thing called Green Pine? You wouldn't have working BMD missiles if it wasn't for Israel and Akash wouldn't be working if not for Poland. India has many choices to seek foreign assistance while China only has one... so what?
Of course it is going to be more automated than a missile system developed in the 1960s. Is it more automated than the Buk-M2 which replaced it... No. India used the base Kub model for its design and obviously it has to modernise it to be relevant today. It isn't going to install analog sytems.
You make a lot of disparaging comments about my debate skills but criticising the messenger doesn't change the issue. Stick with the message.
I don't need to drink the Kool-Aid. I am an impartial observer watching decades of failure. What's pathetic is needing tech-transfer to finish testing after nearly 3 decades of concept and R&D.
Yeah... 25 years Again it says nothing relevant.
France works the same way, except we are able to meet criteria in the roadmap laid out. If we were sitting on developing a SAM for 25 years we would have scrapped it long before that.
Perfected is in overstatement... they won't accept it unless it meets the RFP. Considering those standards were set so long ago...
Have we? 9 years from design finalisation to service is a long time to field a modern fighter with all core technologies in-state? Dassault looks pretty competent to me when Tejas has been sitting 22 years with most core technologies still foreign.
Yes, you like to attack me but really stick with the message. I know it is hard to defend DRDO considering their track record and yes... Trishul was an utter failure.
A half dozen times you attack me... why? Your argument is that weak?
Seven times you attack me... your argument is that weak?
Now you attack France to attack my sensibilities... your argument is soooo strong! French battle record is flawless under the 5th Republic and its weapons have performed well all over the world.
Russia is not exporting Brahmos because Indian technology is more advanced? Now that IS silly.
Uh.. your own government complained about Russia not sharing core technologies so quit climbing up the wrong tree. I had nothing to do with it. Good luck with that scramjet... it is kicking the butt of even USA.
INot like China, but every country does some reverse-engineering... even France. We bought Javelin for an operational need, but considering the timing am sure a few are torn apart to develop guidance of MMP. It is just a matter of how much that makes it a violation of IP rights.
Chinese R&D centres certainly are inefficient but you dump enough money at something, and enough foreign experts, you can eventually get it. DRDO hasn't achieved its main raison d'etre... to get India off the top of the arms importer list. Going up to nearly 80% dependence on foreign weapons is hideous and a clear sign of DROD's failure. The entry of private firms is limited and you know it. I see plenty of concern watching the foreign imports percentage rise every year, Really? EU exports are almost on par to the US... I would say we are doing rather well and the consolidation of our defence industries can see it rise like Airbus beat Boeing.
:Chinese R&D centres certainly are inefficient but you dump enough money at something, and enough foreign experts, you can eventually get it. DRDO hasn't achieved its main raison d'etre... to get India off the top of the arms importer list. Going up to nearly 80% dependence on foreign weapons is hideous and a clear sign of DROD's failure. The entry of private firms is limited and you know it. I see plenty of concern watching the foreign imports percentage rise every year, Really? EU exports are almost on par to the US... I would say we are doing rather well and the consolidation of our defence industries can see it rise like Airbus beat Boeing." ......
i don't think Chinese R&D centers are inefficient.... Just see what they have done with their space program..its far more advanced than India's space program. They have resorted to copy cat business in order to catch up with Russia and they do have their own R&D programs in building super computing chips.,UAVs. They are just cloning everything American including their cities which resembles any other American cities. Anything is fair iin love and war. we failed to encash Bofors technology to make our own 155mm. what impressed me about you is that ,you have assessed the capabilities of DRDO correctly.
Both India and China can launch things into space. China is still dependent on telecom sats made by Thales and they faked a space walk mission. Beidou was said to be operational a couple years ago, then they said it is operational now but you still can't buy a receiver to check it. Don't believe everything coming out of CCP, it isn't as advanced as everyone thinks. If you look at their SLBM program, you can see it is still not operational and this new generation of rocket engines they tout is still just a claim. What we need to see are results and it just isn't happening.
About the debate between Armand and Archer ( A-to-A..lol ) I would like to to add that yes, I agree India didn't had a radar seeker to fit into the Akash SAM and it is still unclear how much progress had our local initiatives have reached regarding this technology, so by the time Akash system was designed the SARH was never an option, current example of the Barak-8 JV is an example that India still need to master such a technology, though we have the rocket science. But the advantage of command guidance in that range band cannot be discounted as the fact of strong and powerful radio emitters from the Land based radars at the respective range would be hard to jam compared to puny missile head radar seekers.
In the other hand we cannot discount the advantage of know how of radar seeker capabilities, a technology so high and limited to a few, I would have preferred a Soviet styled deployment doctrine, Why not fire both SARH and CG upon a target, for a better kill probability.
Some thing similar is going to happen when we induct a land based Barak-8 system and hopefully an uprated Akash system in the future, but still with a difference of range categorisation.