Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Prashant12]

Astra missile to provide aerial defence to Navy warships

New Delhi: In a major success for the indigenous weapons programme, the Ministry of Defence has decided to develop the homegrown Astra air-to-air, beyond visual range missile into an air defence missile system for the Navy which needs such short-range systems to defend its warships from incoming enemy weapons.

The Astra missile has been developed by the DRDO for front-line combat aircraft such as the Sukhoi-30 and the LCA Tejas meant for shooting down enemy planes at a distance of 70-80 km and was being developed as an air-to-air missile system.

"As part of a proposal cleared by the Defence Acquisition Council led by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Navy will be provided with 14 vertically-launched short range surface to air missile systems for protecting its warships. Of these, four systems will be procured through a global tender while the remaining would be developed indigenously by the DRDO," sources told MyNation.

"The Navy is looking for 10 homegrown SR-SAMs and the DRDO will be developing the Astra missile as the solution for these requirements. The Navy is looking at a missile system which can intercept enemy missiles or aircraft at ranges up to 15 kilometres and the Astra would be able to fulfill this role," the sources said.

The Navy has been working on providing air defence systems to its warships and has been getting the long-range surface-to-air missile systems (LR-SAMs) from Israel while it has been projecting a requirement for short-range weapon systems also.

As per an older plan, the requirement was to be fulfilled through a joint venture programme with France, but after the Army and the Air Force withdrew from it, the cost of the project escalated too much for the maritime force.

The Astra missile programme has been quite successful in meeting the requirements of the Air Force, which has been evaluating it. The Air Force wants its range to be enhanced at different stages to end the reliance on foreign players for these needs.

https://www.mynation.com/news/astra-missile-aerial-defence-indian-navy-warships-pe7n39

 

[binayak95]

Astra missile to provide aerial defence to Navy warships

New Delhi: In a major success for the indigenous weapons programme, the Ministry of Defence has decided to develop the homegrown Astra air-to-air, beyond visual range missile into an air defence missile system for the Navy which needs such short-range systems to defend its warships from incoming enemy weapons.

The Astra missile has been developed by the DRDO for front-line combat aircraft such as the Sukhoi-30 and the LCA Tejas meant for shooting down enemy planes at a distance of 70-80 km and was being developed as an air-to-air missile system.

"As part of a proposal cleared by the Defence Acquisition Council led by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Navy will be provided with 14 vertically-launched short range surface to air missile systems for protecting its warships. Of these, four systems will be procured through a global tender while the remaining would be developed indigenously by the DRDO," sources told MyNation.

"The Navy is looking for 10 homegrown SR-SAMs and the DRDO will be developing the Astra missile as the solution for these requirements. The Navy is looking at a missile system which can intercept enemy missiles or aircraft at ranges up to 15 kilometres and the Astra would be able to fulfill this role," the sources said.

The Navy has been working on providing air defence systems to its warships and has been getting the long-range surface-to-air missile systems (LR-SAMs) from Israel while it has been projecting a requirement for short-range weapon systems also.

As per an older plan, the requirement was to be fulfilled through a joint venture programme with France, but after the Army and the Air Force withdrew from it, the cost of the project escalated too much for the maritime force.

The Astra missile programme has been quite successful in meeting the requirements of the Air Force, which has been evaluating it. The Air Force wants its range to be enhanced at different stages to end the reliance on foreign players for these needs.

https://www.mynation.com/news/astra-missile-aerial-defence-indian-navy-warships-pe7n39

Yeh media waale bhi
Kuch bhi bolte hain

 

[Prashant12]

Yeh media waale bhi
Kuch bhi bolte hain

??

DRDO has QRSAM under development which is based on Astra missile.

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...issile-to-be-developed-by-bdl-and-drdo.76311/

 

[Enquirer]

Its an ASROC developed for ASW duties. Stepping stone towards RUM 139 style rockets.

Incorrect!
Despite the name, ASROC contains a torpedo with a homing device! RGB-60 rockets and the extended range DRDO version being suggested is just a depth charge on a rocket!

 

[Enquirer]

??

DRDO has QRSAM under development which is based on Astra missile.

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...issile-to-be-developed-by-bdl-and-drdo.76311/

All-in-all, there's too much confusion on the missiles being approved for the 14 platforms.
Each journalist is interpreting it as they feel like.
I am also beginning to suspect if the report about MBDA being the supplier for 4 platforms is correct at all.

 

[Chinmoy]

It cannot intercept a Mach 3 class AShM like Brahmos or Klub. It's short range means that this more of a Hail Mary pass like missile. Rather like a PDMS.

Our threat perception can change if PLAN deploys YJ 12 and YJ 18 like missiles in IOR by their flotillas. Maitri tech and sensors are 10 - 15 years old and range is very short.

P.S: Qataris have been able to make a mini CBG by attaching a Kronos L band long range AESA radar to a 5000 ton LPD. In combination with Aster 30 of corvettes you can easily have theatre defense at a very nominal price.

Frigates and Corvettes are not for solo deployment during wartime. These are deployed in a battle group with Destroyers and Submarine if not an AC. The first target of any attack against a BG is the foremost attack ship which is either a AC or Destroyer.

Now while working in a BG, all these ships does work as a unit, one for all and all for one. Our Corvettes and Frigates are already equipped with Barak 8 LR SAM. This order is for SR SAM which is a point defence weapon rather then area defence like BARAK 8.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Our Corvettes and Frigates are already equipped with Barak 8 LR SAM. This order is for SR SAM which is a point defence weapon rather then area defence like BARAK 8.

Except here is where you are wrong good sir. Barak 8 is a 90 - 100km range missile which can intercept a M 3 target at 500 m from the ship on a 360 degree arc. It requires an MF STAR radar based guidance system which can take up to 32 missiles at present architecture. Future versions have 150 km range and provide true long range AAD capability.

Only P 15A/B , P 17A, NGC and NGMV are speculated to have the missile either operational or planned. P 28 series corvette, the main target of this endeavor doesn't.

AC>BB>CG>DDG>FFG>PF is the level of importance accorded to ship classes. P 28 is a PF (Patrol Frigate) which will undoubtedly act alone in littoral regions as part of a micro CBG. That's why we must follow Qatari example.

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the...ip-and-radar-picket-vessel-mash-up?source=dam

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/defe...of-indias-deadly-anti-submarine-corvette/amp/

 

[Kranthi]

Except here is where you are wrong good sir. Barak 8 is a 90 - 100km range missile which can intercept a M 3 target at 500 m from the ship on a 360 degree arc. It requires an MF STAR radar based guidance system which can take up to 32 missiles at present architecture.

Hey, what do you mean by the last line above ? There is no such thing like the MF-STAR can support only 32 missiles. No of missiles carried onboard has nothing to do with the radar. And as per reports, the P15A/B class vessels have space to add 32 more missile tubes in future, without any changes to the radar itself.

Coming to the part where radar capacity really matters, MF-STAR is said to be capable of guiding 2 missiles each to 12 targets at a time, should the ship face saturation attacks. Which means 24 missiles can be launched and guided at once.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

Hey, what do you mean by the last line above ? There is no such thing like the MF-STAR can support only 32 missiles. No of missiles carried onboard has nothing to do with the radar. And as per reports, the P15A/B class vessels have space to add 32 more missile tubes in future, without any changes to the radar itself.

Coming to the part where radar capacity really matters, MF-STAR is said to be capable of guiding 2 missiles each to 12 targets at a time, should the ship face saturation attacks. Which means 24 missiles can be launched and guided at once.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

What you are talking about is simultaneous engagement mode. There are no reports anywhere for 32 more Barak 8 in future. What you are getting is a 32 VLS based SRAM or 8 - 16 Nirbhay VLS (Most likely first case). Even then you require a FCR integrated into the system.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

What you are talking about is simultaneous engagement mode. There are no reports anywhere for 32 more Barak 8 in future. What you are getting is a 32 VLS based SRAM or 8 - 16 Nirbhay VLS (Most likely first case). Even then you require a FCR integrated into the system.

The ships can carry much more than 32 barak-8 missile. The load out could be as high as 144 barak-8, 144 Nirbhay and 72 Brahmos if needed. The reason to not add such firepower is because the current objective is not to wage war but to maintain deterrence. So, high loadout will increase operational costs unnecessarily.

 

[vampyrbladez]

The ships can carry much more than 32 barak-8 missile. The load out could be as high as 144 barak-8, 144 Nirbhay and 72 Brahmos if needed. The reason to not add such firepower is because the current objective is not to wage war but to maintain deterrence. So, high loadout will increase operational costs unnecessarily.

Nope. Unless you expand architecture dramatically you can't no matter how much we wish for it. There is power demands, space demands and cooling as well as increased cost of manning, maintenance , attrition and money of course. The architecture has also been frozen in for P 15 A/B and P 17 A/B so no chance in near future. Instead unless additional FCR are used like an AN SPQ 9B for SRAM no chance.

A scaled up MF STAR could be used for future projects like P 18.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Nope. Unless you expand architecture dramatically you can't no matter how much we wish for it. There is power demands, space demands and cooling as well as increased cost of manning, maintenance , attrition and money of course. The architecture has also been frozen in for P 15 A/B and P 17 A/B so no chance in near future. Instead unless additional FCR are used like an AN SPQ 9B for SRAM no chance.

A scaled up MF STAR could be used for future projects like P 18.

What architecture or space are you talking about? What power is needed for a VLS to simply sit around in dormant state? Do you think those who designed the ships were dumb to keep space for just 64-72 missiles in a ship of 1000-4000 tons? The VLS are compact and don't eat up much space either. The ship is useless if it is not able to carry arms. So, carrying arms is the main goal and hence more space will be allocated to it.

I have told that manning, maintenance, attrition etc matter in peace time and hence is used judiciously. But, in war, these missiles are meant to be used and hence numbers will increase. Manpower, attrition etc are not a concern during war as the missiles will be used up before requiring replacing.

 

[Kranthi]

What you are talking about is simultaneous engagement mode. There are no reports anywhere for 32 more Barak 8 in future. What you are getting is a 32 VLS based SRAM or 8 - 16 Nirbhay VLS (Most likely first case). Even then you require a FCR integrated into the system.

You are showing the current architecture of these ships. How is it evidence that this is the limit. I say we can add more VLUs and then the diagram just becomes bigger.

We have space and since these are different VLU modules, there can't be issues like power and cooling load on the processing unit. They need to be connected to the combat system and it can always switch between the VLU units electronically. And by your logic, if the hardware architecture only supports 4 VLU units at a time, I can't think what stops us from either manually or electronically unplug the empty VLU units and plug in the full load ones. Don't think it's that difficult to program the command system to accept this. Just like if you have two Bluetooth headsets, when one runs out of battery, you disconnect it and connect another one. The software's job is to interface and use whatever device is connected. If a phone software can be programmed to accept change, a frontline warship's command and fire control system certainly can.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

What architecture or space are you talking about? What power is needed for a VLS to simply sit around in dormant state? Do you think those who designed the ships were dumb to keep space for just 64-72 missiles in a ship of 1000-4000 tons? The VLS are compact and don't eat up much space either. The ship is useless if it is not able to carry arms. So, carrying arms is the main goal and hence more space will be allocated to it.

I have told that manning, maintenance, attrition etc matter in peace time and hence is used judiciously. But, in war, these missiles are meant to be used and hence numbers will increase. Manpower, attrition etc are not a concern during war as the missiles will be used up before requiring replacing.

Look at the diagram again. For every VLS unit there is a control unit and sub control systems monitoring the setup. Based on the architecture presented, as of now 32 Barak 8 can only exist. To install more units you need a similar number of control units and sub systems.

The P 15 A/B were made for a 7000+ ton class. P 17A is 6000+ ton class. For running so many systems together you need additional power and cooling systems. Even a massive ship like the Arleigh Burke Flt III has many engineering change proposals to allow for the next generation AN SPY 6 AMDR - S and possible energy and railgun based weaponry.

However by adding FCR to the setup you can judiciously add PDMS to the setup. This is done in Barak 1 using Elta 2221 STGR radar.

@Kranthi

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Look at the diagram again. For every VLS unit there is a control unit and sub control systems monitoring the setup. Based on the architecture presented, as of now 32 Barak 8 can only exist. To install more units you need a similar number of control units and sub systems.

The P 15 A/B were made for a 7000+ ton class. P 17A is 6000+ ton class. For running so many systems together you need additional power and cooling systems. Even a massive ship like the Arleigh Burke Flt III has many engineering change proposals to allow for the next generation AN SPY 6 AMDR - S and possible energy and railgun based weaponry.

However by adding FCR to the setup you can judiciously add PDMS to the setup. This is done in Barak 1 using Elta 2221 STGR radar.

@Kranthi

The extra missiles will not always be connected ad running at full alert. It is just like having extra magazine of ammunition. We use the extra magazine once the current magazine is over.

There is no power requirement as dormant VLS does not consume power. The missiles are canisterised and cooling is not needed. The control unit is in the fire control radar and the VLS just has the interfacing ability. The radar switches on and off the required VLS as per needs, fires the missiles by interfacing with the selected canister and then guides it to target. Once the canister is empty, radar seeks out the next canister and activates it and then continues

 

[vampyrbladez]

The extra missiles will not always be connected ad running at full alert. It is just like having extra magazine of ammunition. We use the extra magazine once the current magazine is over.

There is no power requirement as dormant VLS does not consume power. The missiles are canisterised and cooling is not needed. The control unit is in the fire control radar and the VLS just has the interfacing ability. The radar switches on and off the required VLS as per needs, fires the missiles by interfacing with the selected canister and then guides it to target. Once the canister is empty, radar seeks out the next canister and activates it and then continues

Cooling and power is required for the control system units (MF STAR) and the FCR (Integrated to MF STAR). This very interfacing involves the bespoke sub systems and the VLS magazine too has diagnostic systems attached to monitor missile and prevent misfire during launch. Such a system as you mention is only good for revolver based VLS as Soviets use firing 1 missile per cluster at a time.

For Barak 8/UVLM like VLS

To add more VLS you need to cut open and add the missiles during a MLU and the very magazine process you describe is fixed not a 'current' or 'former' one. Systems are designed for volley fire and alert status as a baseline. If I can't fire all VLS together in salvo and must rely on a switching chain, it gets inefficient. That's why more VLS = more subsystems = more power/cooling units ; FCR = more space required. That's why more ships are moving towards automation and reducing crew component to fit bigger and more numerous systems both radar and weaponry.

A possible solution is the DRDO SLS launcher which you can see in future P 18 class destroyer.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

To add more VLS you need to cut open and add the missiles during a MLU and the very magazine process you describe is fixed not a 'current' or 'former' one. Systems are designed for volley fire and alert status as a baseline. If I can't fire all VLS together in salvo and must rely on a switching chain, it gets inefficient. That's why more VLS = more subsystems = more power/cooling units ; FCR = more space required. That's why more ships are moving towards automation and reducing crew component to fit bigger and more numerous systems both radar and weaponry.

The idea is to get reloads, not launch all missiles at once. No sane person would try to launch 32-64 missiles at once. If there is a saturation fire, then each missile will be fired at by only 1 SAM instead of 2 to save ammunition. Just because we keep extra VLS does not mean they also have to be ready continually. They can be used simply as onboard reload. If they are kept as reload, there is no need for extra power or cooling. The MFSTAR and FCR is anyways present regardless of the number of missiles. Only the connection of missiles to launchers will change as missiles get empty.

 

[vampyrbladez]

The idea is to get reloads, not launch all missiles at once. No sane person would try to launch 32-64 missiles at once. If there is a saturation fire, then each missile will be fired at by only 1 SAM instead of 2 to save ammunition. Just because we keep extra VLS does not mean they also have to be ready continually. They can be used simply as onboard reload. If they are kept as reload, there is no need for extra power or cooling. The MFSTAR and FCR is anyways present regardless of the number of missiles. Only the connection of missiles to launchers will change as missiles get empty.

You design a system at max strength and stressed operating circumstances for emergency. The VLS system was made to do away with reload of weapon systems while firing in salvo. Thats why all navies prefer VLS and not deck mounted launcher.

In practice it may not be completely manned/filled with canister of missiles but in war when going back to dock becomes more infrequent those VLS become invaluable. US Navy even has a crane in older models to reload the cells at sea.

What you are calling for is minimum deterrence and posturing. In a shooting war you will burn through missiles rapidly. During Libyan intervention, USN burned through 112 Tomahawks in a single strike.

That's why for more VLS you need the reciprocal control system unit both for the MF STAR unit and the FCR which will have its own control systems both to MF STAR and for itself.

More systems = more juice/cooling = more space and for the very additional VLS itself. Then there is power management concern regarding MF STAR itself. In MLU all ships can be cut open for upgrades (here VLS) but not while rapid mission deployment.

 

[Chinmoy]

Except here is where you are wrong good sir. Barak 8 is a 90 - 100km range missile which can intercept a M 3 target at 500 m from the ship on a 360 degree arc. It requires an MF STAR radar based guidance system which can take up to 32 missiles at present architecture. Future versions have 150 km range and provide true long range AAD capability.

Only P 15A/B , P 17A, NGC and NGMV are speculated to have the missile either operational or planned. P 28 series corvette, the main target of this endeavor doesn't.

AC>BB>CG>DDG>FFG>PF is the level of importance accorded to ship classes. P 28 is a PF (Patrol Frigate) which will undoubtedly act alone in littoral regions as part of a micro CBG. That's why we must follow Qatari example.

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the...ip-and-radar-picket-vessel-mash-up?source=dam

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/defe...of-indias-deadly-anti-submarine-corvette/amp/

You are missing the whole point here. You are vying for LR-SAM against SR-SAM. Both the system has its own place in a ship. When you do talk about intercepting a BRAHMOS like missile at long range, you are forgetting the fact that most of contemporary AShM are designed to be stealthy and so it does need a layered defence system. LR-SAM alone is not upto the challenge in such a scenario.

Lead ship of P-28 class is yet to be fitted with SAM. So it could be a mix of BARAK 8 and this SR-SAM. You simply can't rule it out in P-28. The report cited it for ASW role vessels in particular.

 

[vampyrbladez]

You are missing the whole point here. You are vying for LR-SAM against SR-SAM. Both the system has its own place in a ship. When you do talk about intercepting a BRAHMOS like missile at long range, you are forgetting the fact that most of contemporary AShM are designed to be stealthy and so it does need a layered defence system. LR-SAM alone is not upto the challenge in such a scenario.

Lead ship of P-28 class is yet to be fitted with SAM. So it could be a mix of BARAK 8 and this SR-SAM. You simply can't rule it out in P-28. The report cited it for ASW role vessels in particular.

MF STAR can guide Barak 8 only. With an SRSAM you get only PDMS like RAM and ESSM. Nowadays AsHM have M3 + capability. Even USN navy has SM6 which can act like a supersonic M3.5 + missile.

By using MICA or equivalent missile, we lose out on terminal defense capability. Also for PDMS it's more like you sidearm. You dont send soldiers into battle only armed with pistol.