Prahaar Short Range Tactical Missile System

[nitesh]

Israelis may be involved in Nirbhay on TERRCOM, other things looks achievable. If we see Nirbhay coming online matches close to our IRNSS coming online (Interesting to see that will it take guidance from GLONASS or not). But for 1k KM range, across our border IRNSS is the thing we will be using.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

It was a early morning missile test close to two years ago when DRDO successfully test fired Prahaar, a single stage missile short-range surface-to-surface missile with a range of 150 km and fuelled by solid propellants, it was first and only test of the missile which was carried out by DRDO.

Indian army which was supposed to be its main operator has still not able to find role for it, in its missile arsenal, when idrw.org contacted multiple sources it was informed to us that missile development was not requested by Indian army and army is not able to make any decision about its role and possible induction time frame.

DRDO which was hoping that Prahaar will fill the gap between Pinaka, the multi-barrel rocket system, which has a range of 45 km and the Prithiv missile that can attack targets 250 km to 350 km away. Prahaar is categorised as a "battlefield tactical missile" by DRDO but Prahaar been a conventional missile cannot replace nuclear capable Prithiv missile and it will be expensive to use such an advance missile for the role of long range rocket system.

Indian army already possess long range Heavy rocket launchers Russian made BM-30 Smerch and plans are to go in for local manufacturing soon in India, DRDO itself reportedly is working on Pinaka-II which will exceed range of Smerch bringing it very close to Prahaar range. Satellite navigation and direction correction systems are already providing better accuracy to multi-barrel rocket system; it will be difficult for Indian army to find a role for Prahaar Missile in its arsenal.

http://idrw.org/?p=22234

@Kunal, this is in response to your view about Prahaar. I fully agree with your view, but it seems the IA has yet to come around to the need for the missile system.

 

[DivineHeretic]

re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

@Mods, somebody please correct the title. It should read "Prahaar Missile, which way ahead".

 

[DivineHeretic]

re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Please note that there are certain errors in this article.

Firstly, the Smerch has a range of upto 90-120Km with specialised rockets, though none of them are precision guided as of yet. The range of the IA's rocket artillery is around 90-120 KM, followed up by Prithvi at 300-350 Km. The Prahaar, on entering service would hardly be an intermediate in terms of range. Of course, the performance of this system is at another level.

Secondly, the Pinaka and the Smerch are both heavy rockets, carrying around 1000kg of warhead and 200kgs respectively, which could be anything from cluster munition to Thermobaric warheads. The IA does not operate light rocket launchers apart from the Carl-Gustov.

 

[bose]

re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

The beauty of Prahaar is that a single luncher module can be used nutralize multiple targets at the same time...

Not sure if can carry smaller battlefield nukes... If not then their use will be a costly proposition...

 

[Payeng]

re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

We can offer to our Afghan friends.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Just another example of ill- Informed / Paid Media..

1. Prahaar was designed and made as specified by Army only if not then should provide evidence not unnamed sources ..

2. Prahaar is guided Missiles design for precision strikes with conventional and unconventional ammunition..

3. BM-30 are imported not licensed only there ammo is made in India ..

4. Prahaar and BM-30 are different system in range and guidance and tasks they cannot be compare..

5. Pinaka 2 is of 60kms, Pinaka system are design to replace BM-21 MBRL ..

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

@Mods, somebody please correct the title. It should read "Prahaar Missile, which way ahead".

Done.

Please use the report button. It is much easier.

 

[JBH22]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

^ Little correction Pinaka is meant to replace BM-21 Grad MBRL.

BM-30 Smerch was acquired after Kargil war I remember reading when this was inducted in IA an officer said "if we had the BM-30 we would have flatten tiger hill".

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Done.

Please use the report button. It is much easier.

You didn't fix it properly Worser grammar IMO.

Prahar missile, way ahead [of the competition] was the intended title.

Now Grammar Nazism comes into play.

"Prahar Missile which is way ahead" would be corny. "Prahar Missile, which way ahead" is a question. Make up your mind sir.

 

[Shirman]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

some questions here:-
1). How about using Prahaar against enemy artillery offensive formations
2). Can Prahaar Carry Thermobaric warheads like russian TOS-1
3). It should be able to carry smaller battlefield nukes, since its a gap filler between BM-30 and Pruthvi series of missiles..........

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

You didn't fix it properly Worser grammar IMO.

Prahar missile, way ahead [of the competition] was the intended title.

Now Grammar Nazism comes into play.

"Prahar Missile which is way ahead" would be corny. "Prahar Missile, which way ahead" is a question. Make up your mind sir.

I just changed it to what @DivineHeretic said. How about you guys decide amongst yourselves what to do? I will change it then.

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

I just changed it to what @DivineHeretic said. How about you guys decide amongst yourselves what to do? I will change it then.

Ask Divine Heretic sir whether he intends it to be a question or his English was that bad

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

some questions here:-
1). How about using Prahaar against enemy artillery offensive formations
2). Can Prahaar Carry Thermobaric warheads like russian TOS-1
3). It should be able to carry smaller battlefield nukes, since its a gap filler between BM-30 and Pruthvi series of missiles..........

1) What do you mean by offensive artillery formations?

If you mean standard artillery brigades, Yes, we can load a HE warhead and fire it into the area.

2) Prahaar is supposed to have a choice of 24 different warheads.

3) Ask Kunal Biswas.

 

[Shirman]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

@Keshav Murali Offensive formations = Enemy Tracked +Wheeled SPGs +Towed / with or without Rocket MBRL cover or any formation by which the enemy arty can use numerical superiority to rain down arty shells over weekly/ not so superior artillery force

2). Any details on how may times Prahaar have been test fired up till now / did we tested Prahaar with those 24 types of different warheads.......

3). Cross posting from another post on DFI http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...lutions-artillery-batteries-3.html#post735265 where i think the question of Prahaar's way may be answered.........

 

[DivineHeretic]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Ask Divine Heretic sir whether he intends it to be a question or his English was that bad

The Title is not my writing but rather that of the author.

It reads : "Prahaar Missile, Which way Ahead".
@Pamitra

It clearly means that in the text, the future of the Prahaar is called into question, not the comparison of the system and its superiority.
But of course, the Author makes a mess of his own article by comparing it with systems which are in a different class.

I am now beginning to doubt the intentions of IDRW. For some time now, they've been very agressively publishing articles against indegenious systems. Whats up with that?

 

[ladder]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Yes there has been questions about the intended role of Prahaar missile in Army and that it's development was not mandated by armed forces.
But it due to the confusion about its developmental cycle.
Prahaar was developed in just two years as it's development was spin-off of AAD system.
Not just the exterior casing is common but may subsystem are also common among the two.

Here is a link about it
India's interceptor missile test yields new surface-to-surface missile as a spin off - Thaindian News
Note: the name mentioned is Ashwin is wrong as then it was speculation.
now AAD it-self is called Ashwin air defence/ akash air defence
and PAD is called Pradyumna air defence/ prithvi air defence

Now, this lead to a belief among jurnos that DRDO was pushing Prahaar.
But, armed forces were in need for short range/ battlefield range BM for two reasons

1. As Prithvi is a liquid fuelled missile and is not quick reaction and mobility less.
2. Prithvi is placed under SFC and not Army.After Agni-1 became operational there was talks of placing Prithvi under army but that would have mean notifying our adversary about the move ( when it is moved from SFC control to army control) as to clear out the confusion and they not taking it as a nuclear strike on them.( when prithvi is launched by army using conventional warhead)

So, there is a requirement of Prahaar system in Army but what changes have the army proposed ( if they have is not known).

Similarly AAD can give birth to LR-SAM will Air Force reject it because it is a spin-off, even if it is a potent platform?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

1. Yes, it can be what you told is overlapping fire support covers of one system over another..

2. Yes ..

3. I dont have idea about tactical nukes but Prahaar may can carry as its diameter is bigger than 300mm..

some questions here:-
1). How about using Prahaar against enemy artillery offensive formations
2). Can Prahaar Carry Thermobaric warheads like russian TOS-1
3). It should be able to carry smaller battlefield nukes, since its a gap filler between BM-30 and Pruthvi series of missiles..........

 

[DivineHeretic]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

Just another example of ill- Informed / Paid Media..

1. Prahaar was designed and made as specified by Army only if not then should provide evidence not unnamed sources ..

2. Prahaar is guided Missiles design for precision strikes with conventional and unconventional ammunition..

3. BM-30 are imported not licensed only there ammo is made in India ..

4. Prahaar and BM-30 are different system in range and guidance and tasks they cannot be compare..

5. Pinaka 2 is of 60kms, Pinaka system are design to replace BM-21 MBRL ..

All the articles out of IDRW lately have been against one or the other indegenious system, including a laughable piece about Dhruv after the Siachin crash.

But, it is well known that Prahaar was not requested by the Army, it was a independent DRDO project (kind of like the Agni5 was, until sanctioned by GOI ) though the army was kept in the loop during the development of the missile. The Army at the time of development had not commited to inducting it, but also never complained about its development.

If the system is not inducted, the army must share the blame. It should've voiced its concern bout the lack of the missile as soon as they came to know of its development.

Btw, Prahaar and Smerch do share certain similarities. The Prahaar has a flight altitude of 35 km, the BM-30 has an altitude of 40Km. Both have a payload of 200kg and nearly the same range (150 km for Prahaar and 120km for Smerch).

But that is where the similarity ends. The Prahaar is not a rocket or even a cruise missile, its best described as a quasi-ballistic missiles with very high accuracy, with inbuilt homing guidance systems.

The Smerch is a wide area Suppression/destruction platform, good for area denial or supporting assault units, while the Prahar allows the field level commander a good,affordable & reliable tactical strike capability, similar to US ATACMS.

The Prahaar can play a very vital role IMO. A battery, or even a single vehicle of Prahaar, carrying 6 missiles, moving with an IBG, will be a force multiplier the Army will want.

Consider the following scenario. An IBG is on a fast penetrating assault into Pak, 48 hours after secret orders from CCS. Due to lack of time, SEAD AND DEAD operations haven't been able to neutralise the deeper positioned SAMs with PA/PAF. Due to this, theIBG, after penetrating some 30 km will have to come to a standstill, as CAS will be too risky and even flying gunships are not feasible. Please note that the IBGs are dependent on speed and CAS for success.

Now, we introduce the Prahaar, some 30 km behind the main front of the IBG. With the help of LO Drones carrying radiation detectors or even CCD camera, the position of the SAM radar is detected some 30-45 behind the frontline. With the help of Prahaar, this distance of 60-75 or even 100 km can be neutralised in under 210 seconds (3.5 minutes). Due to such short time and active availability of the tactical missile, the enemy SAM gets no chance to flee the area. ( A mobile radar system can take upto 20 mins to be mobile). Now SAMs neutralised, all CAS ACs can resume their support to the IBG, and assault resumes after say 20-30 mins.

In place of Prahaar, ACs can be used for DEAD ops, but thats putting higly expensive assets at risk, not to mention that the AC will have to wait until radar becomes active again to use HARM munitions. This form of DEAD can take hours, while the assault will stall. And in Blitzkrieg, tine is everything.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Prahaar Missile, which way ahead

IDRW is copy paste site, they simple take news from here and there and post..

I got the information that Prahaar was design and made under Army supervision, I would wait for more information ..

Smerch has 90kms range extended not 120kms ..

All the articles out of IDRW lately have been against one or the other indegenious system, including a laughable piece about Dhruv after the Siachin crash.

But, it is well known that Prahaar was not requested by the Army, it was a independent DRDO project (kind of like the Agni5 was, until sanctioned by GOI ) though the army was kept in the loop during the development of the missile. The Army at the time of development had not commited to inducting it, but also never complained about its development.

Btw, Prahaar and Smerch do share certain similarities. The Prahaar has a flight altitude of 35 km, the BM-30 has an altitude of 40Km. Both have a payload of 200kg and nearly the same range (150 km for Prahaar and 120km for Smerch).