The Indian Navy has called for information from global vendors to support a potential purchase of >10-km range surface to air point defence missile system for warships upto 7,000-tons (the Kolkata-class destroyers will be ~6,900-tons). The Navy has stipulated that it wants a system with a range in excess of 10-km, capable of engaging multiple & sea-skimming targets, capable of engaging both supersonic and subsonic targets.
can't trishul be improved, tht navy goes for outsider!!!
We already working on Barak-2.
Cant trishul be improved tht we r goin for vidashi mal or Navy wants to go through new tech and Ideas to giv ideas to DRDO on trishul!!!!
Logic would dictate that a navalised VL variant of the Maitri SR-SAM be co-developed, with the second choice being to co-develop a navalised VL-Astra. Third choice is to ink a supplementary contract with Nova Integrated Systems (already co-developing the Barak-8 MR-SAM/LR-SAMs with IAI) to co-develop an advanced derivative of the existing Barak-1. Can't understand why the Indian Navy has to seek global RFIs when all it has to do is seek RFIs from the DRDO and Nova Integrated Systems.
what happened to indo french maitri. it is also a point defence sam of 10 km or excess of that. i saw v.k.saraswat sir said that sr-sam(maitri) is a state of the art sam with 100% kill probability. i think navy is looking for an immediate procurement
Why ask for the information? Doesn't the Barak I system work well enough? Wuldn't it be redundant as it has a range of 32ish KM? Or do they want something in between the range of the CIWS and the Barak I? Seems silly to me.
Trishul was dead and labeled as technology demonstrator.The BARAK was designed for anti sea-skimming missile and not to be used against subsonic targets.
the wat abt the indo-french maitri SAM
Isnt Barak in the same category? Why does the Navy need a new missile now?
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why can't the Navy just continue using Barak? Or wait for Maitri? What purpose would be served by inducting so many systems for the same purpose and straining logistics and maintenance infrastructure?
I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be an excuse to buy the American Sea RAM, just like the MPA tender was just a formality to order the P-8I.
DRDO and PSU defense firms need a kick in the rear for all the misuse of funds and setbacks caused to all the programs they promised. They have become a laughing stock of the nation and the world. Pakistan and China should present awards to the management of the PSU defense firms for failing to meet India's critical defense needs and indirectly serving Pakistan and China. Defense sector PSU industry has become synonymous to "Over-promise and never deliver". Trishul is a prime example.
DRDO trumpets all ongoing projects with too much fanfare and the only people they are fooling are the aam aadmi in India. Pak and China know that all the projects are a failure. China has been quietly developing advanced weapon systems over the last 2 decades and some of which are not with any other nation (for example:anti-ship ballistic missiles). They will pass on all their technology to Pak. What are we doing????
Privatize immediately and get rid of the defense sector PSUs.
Requirement specified is similar to Barak I, however many other global suppliers may be in the run.
Eh stop blaming the navy … they are the ones who do the best in terms of indigenization of all the three services.
Most likely the ROI is meant to evaluate and explore concepts for the next generation post Barak SAMs. It could also be a way of legitimizing Barak 1 purchases for the Kolkata class, but since its an ROI, not RFP, I guess it might be the former.
Barak2 by the way is a different class than Barak 1. Barak 2 is a LR/MR-SAM not a SR-SAM. Do your homework people!
RIM 116 Rolling Airframe Missile seems suitable.
1. The launcher is small enough to be placed anywhere on the ship without affecting the Navy's existing VLS modules.
2. It's optimum range of 9 km is exactly what the navy needs(point defence). BARAK/BARAK-2 and Shtil systems can manage the longer range stuff.
3. It's a damn good missile and launcher system.
Well its an ROI and not RFP. In this age of internet may be even IN has "right to information". But very disappointed about the trishul program. I think as an individual or organization, it is important to deliver every darn time. So much waste of tax payer;s money. Atleast some person should be dismissed from DRDO.
@Shiv, Can we an analysis article a to how and why the program failed ? Is there any hope left for trishul or things have moved on to better alternatives or foreign purchases.
To Kumar@4AM: The Barak-1 is already on order for the three Project 15A Kolkata-class DDGs. The ROI is most likely for the four follow-on Project 15B DDGs.
Gentlemen, it could have been a welcome address to the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), but its range is stated to be 9 Km, whereas the request calls for >10-km range.
hi shiv plese please post the navy exercise videos.i am eagerly waiting…..
Shiv…can you please post the limitations of the Trishul…would it have been usable in this role had it not been retired..(or was it retired coz it could not be)…
Pls post relevant stuff n not rants about how PSUs n DRDOs shud be shut down
After 32 years of service in the Royal Navy, the carrier HMS Invincible is up for sale on the Disposal Service Authority website – the government equivalent of eBay.
Anybody interested?
Well barak is in long range cattegry!!!
DRDO was workin on maitri with MBDA of France wat abt tht!! and DRDO was also workin in surface to air version of Astra !!! Is Navy considering those 2!!
France’s defence ministry says a French Rafale fighter jet has crashed into the waters off PAKISTAN.
Sources said the Indian Navy, as of now, has refused to accept the Akula-II submarine from its Russian counterparts citing inadequate training for its teams to operate the vessel
To Anon 7:31
Can you prove that all projects of DRDO are failure?Well, all are not agree to you.
Indian armed forces so far included many products developed by DRDO and ongoing research is going on.There are very few countries which have organization like DRDO.
Maximum products of China are made out of DIRTY ROOM APPROACH-familiar with this term? OK it is just plain copying with little or no modifications, of course not superior from the original.You mentioned the Anti-ship ballistic missile-(to target Aircraft Careers mainly)that's the thing workable only on papers not in real world situations.Has China tested such a long range missile anywhere?Can you give us the link?Practically, it is quite impossible to find a particular ship in deep ocean as any given point of time ,there are thousands of ships and they are all moving.To detect them one need accurate satellite data and precision calculation.Finally the Aircraft Careers or ships are equipped with state-of the art defensive systems like CIWS and other escorts-here is the link-
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/China–s-anti-ship-missile-not-a-threat–Navy-chief/578104/
Finally-why you think rhe private parties can develop cutting age weapons?Where they will source tech?Our Indian private players haven't design a single 9mm pistol (: BTW -Are you a paki? Don't mind.
3000 plus secret diplomatic (cable) messages exposed will reveal some about US efforts and arm twisting on Indian weopon purchases….
Stay tuned!
Barak does not have true multi-target capability because it has radar CLOS guidance which requires the tracking radar to continually point towards the target until interception. So the tracking radar can be used to intercept a second target only after the first target has been destroyed. Such limitations can be overcome by using a missile with its own active terminal guidance seeker (which barak/trishul do not have), as well as a 360 degree AESA tracking radar with the ability to engage several targets simultaneously. Barak is also limited in range and speed, and may have a tough time against supersonic sea-skimming missiles traveling above mach 2.0 (especially when dealing with several targets at once).
To Jayanta Sarkar:
About China's Anti-ship and anti-Carrier ballistic missile, read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
http://www.andrewerickson.com/2010/11/china-testing-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm/
To Jayanta Sarkar:
The Navy Chief is being delusional to ignore the threat of China's anti-ship ballistic missile, while the US is taking strong note of it's threat. Here again you can see the Indian citizen being kept in the dark.
To Anon 7:50
Ok ,I agreed to what you have shown but I simply do not agree whatever DRDO has designed are all failures and the solution is only privatization.We need to build a military-industrial complex to speed up production,exports and revenue/job generation.It is still long way to go.
Anon 7.46 PM Is there any credible news report of China having successfully tested Anti Ship BM? China is claiming about such a weapons system but till date it has not demonstrated it's capability.
IRBM and missiles of it's class are effective against stationary target and not against moving targets. Even if China developed satellites to track enemy ships how will it help the missile to home in to a moving target? IRBMs and ICBMs are not like cruise missiles which are highly maneuverable. Are there any ICBMs or IRBMs which can change their trajectory after they have been fired?
9:04PM:
If PAD n AAD can take out faster moving missiles n satellites, what about 25knots per hour moving ship to speak of?
China´s carrier killer has mid segment guidance which kicks in at the terminal phase, where its seeker has wider picture/spectrum.
Read this