February trial for naval air defence missile

[sayareakd]

because we did not form any JV company with Israel, not that I heard of......it looks more of a technology transfer to me...

CLGM (JV version of :LAHAT) HALbit for UAV and helmet mounted systems and many other things.

 

[SHASH2K2]

u didn't get my point, if the incoming plane has a missile which has a range higher than 70 km, the plane can fire it with coming into the range of the ship...hence, our missile will be of no use.....

agree but the missile that was fired by that plane can definitely be intercepted by this interceptor missile .

 

[LETHALFORCE]

agree but the missile that was fired by that plane can definitely be intercepted by this interceptor missile .

This missile is designed with cruise missiles in mind if radar can pick up cruise missiles fired further out then planes 70km will be well within radar and give their position away.

 

[nrj]

C3i is very much needed for proper utilization of our defence systems . ANy Idea if its only for navy or for Armed forces and IAF as well ?

DRDO has provided to all IAF/IN/IA. IAF's all bases have these complex mission planning system & are well connected with recent Afnet. Also all simulators of figters, Helos etc are quipped by DRDO's C3I modules.

Even in LRSAM, entire C3I system is designed by DRDO. What I hear is, this system is improved than earlier versions.

 

[SHASH2K2]

DRDO has provided to all IAF/IN/IA. IAF's all bases have these complex mission planning system & are well connected with recent Afnet. Also all simulators of figters, Helos etc are quipped by DRDO's C3I modules.

Even in LRSAM, entire C3I system is designed by DRDO. What I hear is, this system is improved than earlier versions.

Problem that I see is that we are using systems from different vendors and they all have different data links and mode of communictations .Is it possible to integrete them as one and will we be able to fully utilize or automate those systems. something like sensor fusion of Gripen.

 

[nrj]

BARAK II is essentially CIWS. There is fundamental difference between full fledged air defense & CIWS. A CIWS is supposed to be last defense of ship. 70kms is appropriate range imo. We've longer range SAMs for other purposes.

CIWS is what it name says it is, Close In Warfare. It is a point defense system.

Barak II matches ESS or SM-2 systems in west.

 

[SPIEZ]

Problem that I see is that we are using systems from different vendors and they all have different data links and mode of communictations .Is it possible to integrete them as one and will we be able to fully utilize or automate those systems. something like sensor fusion of Gripen.

I can see an advantage here, jammers for one of these systems will not work for most of the other systems. Also in the case of integration, when the nerve center is attacked than every other system would go out of the window.

 

[nrj]

Problem that I see is that we are using systems from different vendors and they all have different data links and mode of communictations .Is it possible to integrete them as one and will we be able to fully utilize or automate those systems. something like sensor fusion of Gripen.

Well recent spectrum problems made our forces to give up their bandwidth & wait for dedicated fiber optics connection. Integration will be done simultaneously when system goes fully operational.

Different vendors are coming from different labs of DRDO. It rarely brings problem in smoothness of operation. But a single public vendor is necessary. And as I've been saying in other threads, we badly need public telecom hardware manufacturer. Armed forces shouldn't be indirectly dependent on private companies.

 

[SPIEZ]

BARAK II is essentially CIWS. There is fundamental difference between full fledged air defense & CIWS. A CIWS is supposed to be last defense of ship. 70kms is appropriate range imo. We've longer range SAMs for other purposes.

CIWS is what it name says it is, Close In Warfare. It is a point defense system.

Barak II matches ESS or SM-2 systems in west.

Close-in weapon system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A close-in weapon system (CIWS), often pronounced sea-whiz, is a naval shipboard point defense weapon for detecting and destroying at short range incoming anti ship missiles and enemy aircraft which have penetrated the outer defenses.

Nearly all classes of modern warships are equipped with some kind of CIWS device.

Are you talking about this CIWS ?
IMO, the BARAK 8 is first meant for aircrafts and than for the missiles. When the guns and SR SAM can do the job very well, why a long range one ? Are they expecting nuclear armed missiles ?

 

[nrj]

The weapon qualification program will include eight test firings, to take place in israel and India, prior to induction into service. Elements of the system have already been delivered to India, including the four-plane MF-STAR phased array radar and shipboard electronic modules supporting the system.

The Indian Air Force is also planning to field the extended range version of the missile, as part of the LR-SAM program, enhancing the nation's air defense capability with wide area, The system will employ advanced surface radars, airborne sensors and advanced datalinks to provide network-centric air defense capability against aircraft, cruise missiles and anti-ship guided missiles, with each site covering a range of 100-110km.

In principle, each destroyer could provide air cover for a large battle group, or share defense assets with other surface combattants, to best respond to aerial or missile threats.

For the ground based system, each battery has it's own control van and mobile command. Network centricity of the system is supported by the Command & Control element of each of these batteries communicating with other batteries and other air defense assets, sharing a common 'sky picture' thus providing positive identification of threats or friendly aircraft, missiles or non combatant elements, assisting commanders in deciding ow best to react to a threat.

Barak 8 / MR-SAM Test Program to Begin in Early 2012 | Defense Update