Total Pageviews

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Here Comes The ‘Prahaar’…At Last

Come July 17, the ITR at Chandipur-at-Sea will play host to the maiden test-firing of the long-awaited 150km-range ‘Prahaar' (to strike) surface-to-surface quick-reaction tactical non-line-of-sight (NLOS) battlefield support surface-to-surface missile, which has been under development for the past four years. First unveilled early last year in scale-model form at the booth of Larsen & Toubro during DEFEXPO 2010, the ‘Prahaar’ will be a road-mobile NLOS weapon—similar to the BrahMos supersonic multi-role cruise missile—with each motorised transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) carrying six cannisterised, vertically-launched missiles armed with conventional warheads. A separate wheeled vehicle is being developed to act as a missile resupply station, carrying six cannistered missile rounds. In fact, it would not be wrong to claim that the 'Prahaar' is an Israel Aerospace Industries-built EXTRA long-range artillery rocket with Indian characteristics. Thus, the solid-fuelled ‘Prahaar’ is, in essence, a product that overcomes all the deficiencies displayed by the Prithvi family of battlefield support missiles (the SS-150, SS-250 and SS-350), which makes uses of liquid fuel and is consequently cumbersome both in terms of transportation and launch readiness procedures. Furthermore, the Prithvi was never a quick-reaction system and its flight trajectory can be easily tracked by early warning radars as it is a single-stage missile. In contrast, the ‘Prahaar’ reportedly boasts a three-element flight-control system, with the third and final stage comprising only the manoeuvring warhead section. The ‘Prahaar’ will eventually replace all existing Prithvi SS-150 missiles that are now deployed by the three Missile Groups attached to the Indian Army’s two Field Artillery Divisions.

A photo of the scale-model of the TEL carrying the ‘Prahaar’ can be seen at: 
 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Dc2Wx4jR9F8/S36mzDlPjVI/AAAAAAAABMM/SsQt3BXjrqo/s1600-h/CIMG2863.JPG

Introduction of such a new precision-guided munition (PGM) is bound to pose some unique challenges to a ground forces commander’s operational art. Just to get an idea of what such challenges might be, I’ve enclosed below an interesting development now taking place within Israel, involving the application of similar PGMs:
A power struggle has erupted between Israel’s IDF-Air Force and the IDF’s Ground Forces Command (GFC) over the training of air support officers to be deployed in infantry units. The air support officers are to assist the units in coordinating air strikes during large operations. The position of air support officer was established following the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and grew in importance after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009. Up until now, the positions have been filled by reservist pilots stationed in infantry and armoured brigades; the pilots undergo special training with the ground forces to learn how to direct air support where IDF troops operate. Now, however, the GFC has asked the General Staff to create the post not just within brigades but also within battalions and even companies. Currently, if a battalion commander wants aerial support, he cannot speak directly with pilots, but needs to put in a request to the brigade where the air support officer then coordinates the strike. Due to this indirect process, the IAF demands that the distance between the target and the nearest IDF troops in the area be at least 1,000 metres. “This is not an effective process,” one senior IDF officer said, “not to mention that in other Western militaries the distance required is around 300 metres and not 1,000.” The IDF-AF, however, says it does not have enough reservist pilots for the role. The GFC has suggested the IDF-AF take some of its squad leaders and train them to become air support officers, but the IAF rejected the proposal, contending that someone who was not a pilot could not fill the position--even though army officers do so in other Western militaries. The issue recently came up at a meeting of the General Staff and, despite the IDF-AF’s opposition, is said to be close to resolution--either by training squad leaders for the positions, or having the GFC buy new rocket systems that would reduce its dependence on air strikes. The GFC recently made an attempt to procure advanced and accurate rocket systems and, despite the IAF’s objections, it is now seeking a budget for the rocket systems as part of the IDF’s new multi-year plan, set to begin in 2011. One candidate is the Accular, developed by Israel Military Industries. It is a 60mm. autonomous surface-to-surface missile guided by a GPS system that puts it within a few meters of a target. The rocket, designed to destroy artillery batteries and infantry command posts, was successfully tested earlier this year in southern Israel. If these rockets are purchased, the GFC would be able to reduce its current level of dependence on IAF air support. This would take some of the load off the IDF-AF and allow it to focus strictly on strategic targets deep in enemy territory. With the new rocket systems, the IDF would create a division of responsibility between the Artillery Corps and IDF-AF to clarify who is responsible for which targets and at which ranges.

60 comments:

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,


it looks like a the DRDo managed to miniaturize the shaurya type solid fuel SRBM into a platform which can be used at corps level. Will it be a tactical strike missile or will it be integrated with nukes as well?? Dr. V.K. Saraswat mentioned strategic targets in the following news release
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2154015.ece

It looks like drdo seems to have a decent lvl of success as far as the surface to surface missiles are concerned. But can they deliver the product in large enough quantities?
your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Dear SIR

Thank you Sir for this NEW and GOOD news

Sir in your earlier answer to my query you had said that Nirbhay is a UAV stimulating drone

What does that mean I did nt Understand

Nirbhay was supposed to be a Cruise Missile

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: The Prahaar is more like the Israeli LORA long-range artillery rocket and it will carry only conventional warheads. You must forgive Dr V K Saraswat for misusing the word 'strategic'. What he meant that the Prahaar can be employed for both the contact and deep battles. Induction of the Prahaar and decommissioning of the Prithvi SS-150s will go a long way in boosting ballistic missile-related CBMs between India and Pakistan--something which was long overdue. Lastly, let's hope from now on the DRDO delivers solutions based on the operator's reqmts, instead of the earlier practice since 1984 of developing a weapon system and then forcing the armed forces to modify their warfighting doctrines for the sake of inducting the solutions.

To Anon@9.38AM: Well, you have a choice: either you choose to believe certain idiotic nerds (from you know where) who are still speculating by trying to equate the Prahaar with non-existent missiles like 'Pradyumna' or 'Ashwin', or you read up more about Nirbhay at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/11/nirbhay-uav-detailed.html

That's why I've given the link to the photo showing the Prahaar's TEL, which clearly shows six vertically-launched NLOS missiles. Thye above-mentioned nerds (with callsigns like Karan M and Shrinivasan) were earlier also claiming that this photo shows the Nirbhay, little realising that land-launched subsonic cruise missiles are never carried in six-pack cannisters in vertical-launch configuration by a single wheeled TEL.

Mirza said...

your talking about that it will replace Pritvi 150km but buzz is that it will support the 90+km range less than 150km because of its size is more likely to attack tactical Battle field headquarter annihilation than the offensive corp Home base

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

Which will be the best AESA-based MMR and IRST sensor combo for the the Tejas Mk2? You have written earlier to a query that the Skyward nose-mounted IRST, which is a derivative of PIRATE IRST is the best IRST while the EL/M-2052 AESA-based MMR will be easier to integrate into the Tejas Mk2, so what do you think will be the best combo with future upgrade?

If the IAF decides to go for active towed decoys can it be mounted on wing-tips of the Tejas Mk2? Can the no. of hard-points be increased in future on the Tejas Mk2?

Anonymous said...

sir u said eft uses the virgillus jammer....but i cudn't find it any where....

plz post some links having some info virgillus being used on eft...

lukin forward to ur rep...
thnks in advance..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mirza: Every weapon system has a maximum and minimum engagement range. Just because a Smerch-M MBRL has a 90km max range doesn't mean that it will not be able to engage targets 50km away. The Prahaar will be able to engage targets between 40km and 150km, i.e. the same performance parameters that were asked of from the Prithvi SS-150, but which the Prithvi could not deliver with the reqd accuracy and reqd swiftness. Battlefield support missiles or long-range MBRLs are never meant to destroy any kind of field HQ as such HQs are either land-mobile nowadays or are buried underground. Instead, the land-based targets to be engaged by missiles like the 'Prahaar' are static and concentrated in nature, such as Brigade-/Divisional-/Corps-level logistics bases, staging and breakout areas for hostile armoured/mechanised formations, ammunition warehouses, power stations, railway junctions, military-industrial facilities, and ballistic/cruise missile launch pads. In essence, the 'Prahaar' will be India's answer to the Hatf-9/Nasr/P-20 battlefield support missile and both missile types will be conventionally armed.

To Anon@11.31AM: In case the IAF/ADA wanted a radar ASAP, then the best AESA-MMR that is proven, cost-effective and mature is Raytheon's RACR (derived from the APG-79). The lightweight Skyward IRST will be the optimum choice, irregardless of which AESA-MMR is chosen for the Tejas Mk2. Integrating the IRST with the AESA-MMR and the mission computer will not be any problem due to the open-architecture nature of the mission avionics suite.
The question to be asked is whether or not the Tejas Mk2 requires active towed-decoys and whether or not it will have the reqd amount of combat radius for penetrating deep into enemy territory where it will encounter the kind of dense, hostile air defences. At the moment, the answer is no, since the Tejas Mk2 will not be deep interdictor like the Jaguar IS or Su-30MKI. Instead, it will be employed for only tactical battlefield air interdiction where it will encounter only hostile VSHORADS and E-SHORADS systems, which can be easily taken care of by its own internal EW suite. Even in the worst-case scenario, if towed-decoys are reqd, then the best option will be to design a customised fuel tank which is equipped with a rear-mounted alternator (as power source)and a special rear section housing the towed-decoy. Another option could be a modified base of the vertical tail section (above the drag-parachute compartment housing the towed-decoy. Wing-mounted installations are at best avoidable at this stage.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.16PM: Here you go:http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/05/virgilius-aesa-based-internal-ew-suite.html

fcuk said...

1. Sir, but in the photo only 3 missiles are carried by the TEL not 6... or at least i only see 3.

2. Why only 150km range? is this IA's requirement or are we awaiting "Mk.2"?

3. Your article on Nirbhay states 2009-10 as date for 1st flight, obviously incorrect?

4. You mentioned Hatf-9/Nasar/P20 are all conventionally armed? But why does everyone else say otherwise Sir?

Thanks

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To fcuk: You're right. It shows only 3 launchers. It is the missile resupply vehicle that will carry six cannistered round. Have already corrected the narrative above. The 40km-150km engagement envelope was what the Indian Army has specified.
My earlier article on Nirbhay did state 2009-10 as date for 1st flight, based on what the DRDO was then officially claiming. It was only last February during Aero India that the DRDO stated that the new probable launch schedule will be sometime next year.As for the Hatf-9/Nasar/P-20 ballistic missile, no one has thus far stated that this missile is armed with a nuclear warhead. All that has been stated is that this missile is CAPABLE of carrying a nuclear warhead.

To Anon@1.59PM: On the contrary, I was the first one in India since 2004 to do published write-ups in FORCE magazine in which I had challenged the procurement of 126 fourth-generation MRCAs (by highlighting that the Tejas Mk1 and its follow-on versions would all be fourth-generation MRCAs), following which the MoD changed the terminology to M-MRCA. And it was in March 2005 that I had predicted that twin-engined M-MRCAs like the Super Hornet, Rafale and EF-2000 would have the upper hand in the M-MRCA competition for obvious reasons. It is all there in my previous blog TRISHULGROUP. No one has erased any comment/observation.

To Anon@3.47PM: That is exactly why I've posted the link to the photo, instead of reproducing the photo, but I guess nitwits like you won't ever figure it out.

Jaidev Jamwal said...

The photo in end of the post is from my blog post at
http://jjamwal.blogspot.com/2010/02/defexpo-new-delhi-2010-l-pavillion.html

A small acknowledgment would've been nice.

Mr. Ra said...

Prahaar is an excellent achievement.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Jaidev Jamwal: And now that you've come forward and rightfully claimed the photo-credit, it is hereby humbly acknowledged and appreciated.

Mr Ra: Of cxourse it is. It has to be, when after all the prospective end-user--the Indian Army--has for almost a decade been asking the DRDO to develop a LORA with Indian characteristics. Therefore, no kudos due to the DRDO, but definitely a congratulatory event for Larsen & Toubro for playing a vital role.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, just disregard those 'nerds' bitching about the photo-link. Afterall, these 'nerds' could not even put 2 and 2 together until you searched for the image and posted its weblink. And now that you've done so, all of their ilk can now do is sulk!!! Reminds me of those same very 'nerds' who refused to believe your rightful observation about the EL/M-2084 MMR being the Arudhra MPR. Finally, the photo-link given by you is highly indicative of the fact that it is not the Nirbhay, since any cruise missile or cruise missile simulating drone will definitely have a solid-rocket booster at the missile's aft end and folding 'wings', items missing from the displayed missile's scale model, which instead only has folding control fins at the aft end (see: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8gXQngrI7x8/S3rDH3acm1I/AAAAAAAAAOo/fEMkqaLZA4E/s1600-h/15022010807.jpg

Anonymous said...

Prasun, most interesting addendums indeed. Keep up the good work, as its is always deeply appreciated. Cheers!

Jaidev Jamwal said...

To P.K.Sengupta

Thanks

Aditya Agrawal said...

Respected Sir,
Well it remains to be seen that DRDO is extending the range of Pinaka to 60/90 Km and will this weapon sustains the flash of Prahaar Missile.

Anonymous said...

The "Prahaar", if successful....would become "operational" by when ???? 2014-15 ??

Anonymous said...

hey, did we induct the ATOMS artillery system from Israel...i was browsing through wiki and i found this....is there any covert acquisition process going to taken both chin-panda and porikistan....

just look at the India's section in below link

http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291284986151.pdf

If we are able to deter, by forcing chin-panda to cease fire in the event of any future war, India would become super power in the region without doubt....

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:32PM; By late 2012 or early 2013.

To Anon@12.01AM: The ATHOS 2052 towed howitzer from Soltam Systems was evaluated by the Indian Army in 2005-2006. The ATMOS 2052 was only showcased at DEFEXPO 2002. None of the two have been procured to date.

Anonymous said...

The launcher photo which is the subject of discussion here has FOUR missiles NOT three as mentioned in the article by Mr. Sengupta.

Prahaar system is similar to US HIMARS.

It can have more than one missile type. It has high automation and reduced reaction time and it is highly mobile similar to US HIMARS.

Anonymous said...

Statements from THE HINDU:

"Dr. Saraswat said the 150 km-range missile would replace unguided rockets and “is going to be an excellent weapon.” It would bridge the gap between Pinaka, a 40-km range multi-barrel rocket system, and the 350-km Prithvi-II, which had been converted into a strategic missile. Unguided rockets of 90-km range had also been imported from Russia."

"Stating that the DRDO-developed missile was cost-effective, Dr. Saraswat said that only a few would be required to cause devastation equivalent to that produced by several unguided rockets."

It could be learned from the statements that Prahaar is to replace unguided long range rocket systems like Smerch and it could very well be the evolution of what was originally denoted as Pinaka-II speculated to be of range 120 km.

It is comparable to GUMLRS X31 and ATACMS variants and superior to Chinese MBRL systems like WS-1x.

Colonel JitendraVyas said...

Mr Prasun,

In your first comment you mentioned that the accuracy of SS-150 is dismissal and the system is cumbersome and so on.

Me being witnessed a trial launch,I assure you that the accuracy of the system has been brought down to 4-6mts.Other than the system being a liquid fueled,its still our best choice to take down the enemy targets with a wide variety of targets.Been using the system fora long time and having tested it multiple times,I will place my bet on using this one. All the inventory of 150`s which are ofcourse a huge number running into a number of hundreds has to be expelled to make room for new inventories.
On the other hand you cant compare a system like prithvi to any other contemporary one. Prithvi lies in an entirely different block. IF accuracy is one factor, then its anti-ABM is another factor.

Having been sitting on a huge pile of prithvi inventory, every new technology that goes into the next gen long range missiles is being tested on prithvis first.Before the anti-boost phase ABM system was put onto A-III its been tested on Prithvis. Just like all other INS and warhead detonation mechanisms and so on.
We just have to accept that with no prithvi, there is no further development of missile technology in India.

And regarding your unresearched comment of Prahaar,that its an indigenised LORA, you are completely wrong at it again. It is a spin-off AAD.While LORA is a quasi ballistic missile, Prahaar is not.

My sinciere advice is that, next time when you have to post, do research on it.Just dont post whatever pops in your mind.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.32AM: HIMARS? GUMLRS X31? ATACMS? Are these all vertically launched, like the Prahaar? Been smoking something lately which the DRDO officials don't? Or do you have eyes and yet can't see?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.01AM: Who ever said that the Smerch-M MBRL fires unguided rockets? Even the Pinaka Mk1 MBRL's rockets are guided by the TCS from IMI! Wake up and do your homework, for once!!!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

@7:32AM: The statement from Dr V K Saraswat says six missiles can be carried by the TEL, which is a wrong statement as the L & T-fabricated launcher photo shows only three missiles. The number four is associated with warhead-types, just as was the case with the Prithvi SS-150. Therefore, do your homework, look, see, absorb and then make statements.

To Col Jitendra Vyas: Look, whoever you may claim to be in the cyberworld, one thing is certain: you are totally detached from reality, you're rambling about matters that you're not privy to, and are making baseless allegations about me labelling the Prahaar as an indigenised LORA. Nowehere have I made such a remark, simply because indigenising such systems is an impossibility. Obviously folks like you have never had the chance to even interact with the end-user of such missile systems--the Indian Army--to even get a feel of what exactly are the operational reqmts for long-range artillery. And your discredited defence of the Prithvi family of missiles (be it for BMD or battlefield support) clearly reveals that folks of your ilk belong to the group of blithering idiots like the BR wannabes smoking something which sane individuals do not.
And what's this about India being devoid of missile development if there's no Prithvi? What about the Shaurya, Agni-3 and Agni-5? Your statements seem to suggest that all these missile R & D programmes are of no significance whatsoever!!! That's why, my 'sinciere' advice is that, next time when you have to post anything in my blog, do some basic research on the topic. Just don't post here whatever pops in your mind, although you're totally free to and entitled to do so elsewhere.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Col Jitendra Vyas: And since you claim to have witnessed a trial launch (of which variant of the Prithvi?), can you bopther to explain how exactly was the accuracy of the in-service live Prithvi SS-150 brought down to 4-6metres? Are you implying that such missiles can just be hauled into a BRD-type facility and have their navigation/flight control systems replaced? And how many SS-150s have been produced to date? Let's see if your explanations/figures tally with what BDL had to say during Aero India 2011.

THINK TANK said...

Prasun PRITHIVI was a DUD,Liquid Propollent...ARMY-AIRFORCE-NAVY all rejected it...only berucratic pressure has made there entry in services...now Mr.Saraswat brought this dude...PRAHAR...I Think we should work on tested BRAHMOS missile...Longer Versions it will be more practical.

KeyMaster said...

Prasun ,

the launher actually has 6 missiles.

here is another view

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8gXQngrI7x8/S3rDH3acm1I/AAAAAAAAAOo/fEMkqaLZA4E/s1600/15022010807.jpg

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KeyMaster: Nope. It is a triple-tube VLS launcher. I myself took four pictures of the scale-model from different angles at the L & T booth in February 2010 during DEFEXPO. These photos will be published in the August 2011 issue of FORCE. It is the missile reloading vehicle that will carry six VLS cannisters. In comparison, the LORA, Iskandar-E and Hatf-9/Nasr/P-20 missiles are all carried inside twin-tube cannisters (or two missiles per TEL). Thanks to the design of available wheeled TELs worldwide (including India), carrying six vertically launched NLOS missiles with 150km-range is a physical impossibility, rest assured.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To THINK TANK: You're absolutely right about the Prithvi being a DUD and a dead-horse being flogged for totally discredited reasons. But do bear with me a while longer and by next month the design linkages between the Prahaar and LORA will be revealed. There's more to it than meets the eye as of now, but the statement made by Avinash Chander, Chief Controller, (Missile & Strategic Systems), DRDO, about the Prahaar's three-element design was a dead giveaway. But his statement was misinterpreted by the reporter from THE HINDU, who erroneously translated it as being "three propulsion motors for the first, second and third stages of the missile". One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that it is again a physical impossibility to equip a 150km-range missile with three flight stages like that envisaged for the Agni-5. Instead, what Avinash Chander meant was that the first element to be fired in the VL Prahaar will be the jettisionable positioning thrusters for directionally aligning the missile with its intended flight path (as in the BrahMos and Shaurya). The second element will in fact be the solid-duel sustainer rocket motor, while the third element will be the manoeuvrable missile warhead equipped with its own multi-axis rocket motor for the terminal flight phase. And that is precisely why the Prahaar's (and LORA's) control fins are rear-mounted, and there are no control fins attached to the warhead section (unlike the Hatf-9/Nasr/P-20). The Iskander-E, on the other hand, is like the Prithvi, where the entire body of the missile starting from missile launch till impact stays as one unit.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sengupta,

This is Anon@7.32AM.

The launcher was in public display at Defexpo 2010. It was witnessed by many people.

There is no way one can pretend that the launcher model shown there doesn't contain 4 missiles.

What is really surprising to me atleast, is you prefer to counter Dr. V.K. Saraswat's, Director General, DRDO, statement by using some random picture from Internet. This kind of assertion doesn't add any credibility.

On Pinaka, fyi, its guidance system is SIGMA 30 from Sagem - this you call as guided rocket. Before taking jibe at others, I request you to do your homework. Thanks.

Regards

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon Above: I have more than enough photos of my own showing the TEL's configuration, and therefore I don't need your advice. And FYI the Sigma-30 from SAFRAN/SAGEM is the ring laser gyro-based land navigation system for the Pinaka MBRL launch vehicle, while the trajectory correction system (TCS) from Israel Military Industries is on-board the rocket round. Now stop being a blithering idiot!!!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:21PM: It is you that's countering Dr Saraswat by claiming the TEL has four VL Prahaars. In the news report by THE HINDU Dr Saraswat is quoted (wrongly) as saying that the TEL carries six missiles!!!

Anonymous said...

dude check this out....

someone posted it before whats ur take on it...

http://i1081.photobucket.com/
albums/j351/Raviprakash1/CombinedPrahar.jpg

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon Above: The dude who created that weblink will don the mantle of becoming a certifiable moron once he sees the photos of the Prahaar's TEL from different angles in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine. He kindda reminds me of others of his ilk who last month were spreading disinformation by claiming that the EL/M-2084 MMR/Arudhra MPR was a DRDO-developed product.

Anonymous said...

hey arudhra radar is indian radar check out mod 2010-2011 annual report....

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon Above: Of course it is an Indian radar. Now that India has bought it from Israel it is an India-owned product. No one's denying that. But to be noted is that an Indian radar does not necessarily mean that it is a Made-in-India product or a DRDO-developed product.

Anonymous said...

dude it has been mentioned that is indigenous one in the report 2010-2011.....dude r u sure prahar has 3 missiles....if u have pic plz post..!!!

Anonymous said...

bro, stop fuming..

so we wanna get this straight, please clarify on the relationshipo between this missile and Lora?

is Prahaar = Lora??

thx

Anonymous said...

Is Prahaar is missile type(prithvi) or MBRL type, payload .
any idea nos may be ordered if it is success in test.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

From the two photos linked here, i could see 4 missiles. Can you upload your pics for confirmation.

Or, are there two different launcher configuration?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.51PM: What exactly is your problem? Having problems digesting the truth? Shiv Aroor at LIVEFIST had stated that the Arudhra is an Israel-built radar simply because the MoD itself has said so in a press release (posted by LIVEFIST at: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/photos-iaf-inducts-indian-built-arudhra.html). So why are you still confused? It is not the whole world which is saying that the Arudhra is an indigenous radar, but only an erroneous and misleading news report originating from the IANS news agency which claimed that the Arudhra is indigenous. Does that now clear all your doubts? If not, then kindly approach at your own peril ACM P V Naik at Vayu Sena Bhavan or the MoD's Directorate of Public Relations and ask them to tell you the gospel truth, and why did the MoD's 2010-2011 annual report contradict the DPR's press release.
Regarding the Prahar's TEL, yes I do have the pictures, which will appear in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine. But I'm sure there are several other journalists that visited DEFEXPO 2010 and took photos. So why don't you ask them to post some photos? As far as I'm concerned, I'm more interested in having a debate on the operational necessity of developing the 'Prahaar' and on the reasons for not re-lifing the existing Prithvi SS-150s (rightly so in my view) and instead going for the 'Prahaar' as replacements.

To Anon@6.20PM: Bro, sometimes fuming becomes unavoidable when morons can't distinguish between a land navigation system and a FOG-based TCS. Yes, Prahaar = LORA in terms of design and performance parameters. Only difference is that Prahaar is fabricated (built and produced) in India, and its TEL has been designed and fabricated by Larsen & Toubro.

To Anon@8.05PM: Prahaar is a SS-150 Prithvi-type surface-to-surface battlefield support missile that will each all the existing Prithvi SS-150s. It can be fired in salvo mode, but is not a MBRL-type rocket because it will be vertically launched. We will have to wait until July 17 to find out whether or not its first test-flight is a success.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.20PM: There isn't any gap between the Smerch-M MBRL and Prahaar. The only gap that needs to be plugged is between 37.5km (the Pinaka MBRL's range) and the Smwerch-M's quoted range of 90km. And the only way to plug this gap is by procuring 155mm/52-cal self-propelled field artillery howitzers (motorised and tracked) firing rocket-assisted projectiles out to 61.4km, as demonsrated a decade ago by both the Bhim tracked SPH and the Caesar motorised SPH. The Smerch-M is an area saturation weapon and although it can deliver guided sensor-fuzed munitions, it still does not count as a precision strike weapon. The Indian Army has since 2002 been asking for hypersonic missiles with depressed flight trajectories for high-accuracy (not pinpoint accuracy, mind you) strikes against hostile fixed static targets like POL storage areas (for Brigade- and Divisional-level formations), and transportation infrastructure nodes located along interior lines of communication (consequently making the Prahaar Pakistan-specific). As such, since the targets are not too plenty in number, only a limited inventory of 'Prahaars' will be reqd, like 80 missiles per missile group, which works out to 240 missiles for the three existing missile groups, plus three reload rounds, working out to 720 missiles. In terms of both the cost-benefit ratio and techno-economic matrix, the Prahaar will be extremely cost-effective as it will the free up the IAF's strike aircraft assets to launch strategic and tactical air interdiction sorties, instead of undertaking the extremely hazardous task of battlefield air interdiction. This in turn will dramatically reduce blue-on-blue engagements (which were plenty in the 1965 and 1971 wars) and also dramatically reduce the sensor-to-shooter time-gap that presently prevails as far as the Army's field artillery formations are concerned. In other words, the emphasis is on effects-based operations, and not on the tonnage of TNT dropped in and around the targetted areas.

To Anon@10.27PM: My photos will appear in the August 2011 issue of FORCE. In the meantime, why don't you request the more illustrious journalists at LIVEFIST or BROADSWORD or CHINDITS or for that matter from anyone else to post their pictures? I'm pretty sure they too had covered DEFEXPO, unless they were either totally ignorant about the subject matter or were just not doing any serious work, which I doubt. Afterall, if it hadn't been for me identifying the L & T-built TEL of the Prahaar, all of us wouldn't be having this debate on a global scale, right? Even the dudes who had taken photos of the TEL and had published them in their respective blogs didn't have a clue about their eventual applications. And kindly also ask the above-mentioned bloggers to confirm with the MoD whether or not the Prahaar and even the existing SS-150 Prithvi surface-to-surface battlefield support missiles are ballistic missiles, or are they cruise missiles. And just remember that while the Shaurya/K-15 was initially labelled as a submarine-launched ballistic missile, it later emerged that the Shaurya was indeed a hypersonic cruise missile flying as depressed flight trajectory (as rightly stated by BROADSWORD/Ajai Shukla).
As far as I'm concerned, it was known to only those took the trouble to check things out that the L & T-built TEL was indeed designed for the 'Prahaar'. But we were requested to sleep over this matter until the DRDO had made any formal announcement about it. It was only after the DRDO revealed the existence of the 'Prahaar' on July 2 that I decided to link it with the photos published by other blogs. Therefore, an exhaustive description of the Prahaar and its projected application, drafted as far back as March 2010, will at last be publishyed in next month's FORCE magazine issue.

Anonymous said...

alrite, so in other words India obtained Lora design from Israel and is producing it? along the lines of Chetak helos? lol u gotta be kidding...

Anonymous said...

Mr. Prasun, I really enjoy your blopg especially the comment field; but at times you remind me of Zaid Hamid. I hope u take no offence and keep going. Nava.

Anonymous said...

For Anonymous@10:59AM:: And you're hallicunating in a fool's paradise. Just absorb what Parsun has said and then go check out the visuals of a LORA and its vertical canister. Only after this you all can only conclude what parsun has been saying all along is is true. And STDU (!!!) if you're unable to accept reality.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.28PM: Which Zaid Hamid are you referring to and in what context? I know of several Malaysians by that name.

buddha said...

sir I heard something fishy in Trainer selection process and it is being detained untill the probe being over(korean objection)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To buddha: And the BoI will conclude that there was nothing fishy at all, since it is the gospel truth. Pilatus Aircraft has been working with HAL since the early 1990s and had helped HAL as a consultant when the HTT-35 basic turboprop was first designed. The HTT-40 BTT project of HAL is nothing new, but the original HTT-35, the only difference now being that the HTT-40 will be powered by new-generation turboprop engines from Pratt & Whitney Canada. I remember way back in 1991 when I was visiting the Seoul International Aerospace Expo that officials from the then Daewoo Aerospace which was designing the KT-1, told me that after comparing the design/performance parameters of the PC-9 and Shorts Tucano, Daewoo had decided to develop a copycat version of the PC-9, which will be armed as well. In the IAF's case, the reqmt is not for an armed BTT, but just a simple and robust BTT for flying training only. Consequently, the PC-7 Mk2 fits the bill perfectly, while the KT-1 Woongbi would be an overkill of no value and necessity.

Anonymous said...

I mean THIS ZAID HAMID
Don't get confused with Syed Hamid.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda

are you saying that Prahaar is actually a LORA bought from israel and renamed by us? Is it totally developed by us or not?

Black Hawk said...

i am wondering why has DRDo not developed any tactical missiles with ranges above 2000 kms. The Chinese constitute our main threat and we should be preparing for a possible stand-off along arunachal border. now many of india's major population centers are in the north and east along with many imp. air bases and arms factories. in a future war china can easily target these with its missiles especially their cruise missiles. but for us it is very difficult coz china's major cities, air bases, factories, etc. are in central, eastern and southern china. we cant take them out without a 2000 km range tactical missile. our airforce can't penetrate 2000 km into china with impunity. so shouldn't DRDO be going for a 2000 km+ range Prahaar type missile instead of concentrating on pakistani front alone.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.51PM: Read my latest upload for more details.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Black Hawk: There is definitely a need for a 1,500km-range subsonic cruise missile to target China's strategic installations and air bases in central China as well as in the provinces of Yunnan, Sichuan and the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Austin said...

Prasun , Shaurya can be classified as Hypersonic Boost Glide Vehical (BGV) and not a hypersonic cruise missile , unlike cruise missile it does not do a nap of the earth flight or changes altitude/trajectory in flight but flies at an altitude of ~ 50 km at hypersonic speed during most phase of its flight.

The idea is to provide lowest possible reaction time for Long Range Early Warning Radar due to it low altitude of flight also termed as depressed trajectory flight and minimum reaction time , at that altitude and speed intercepting it is not an trival task.

Ofcourse Shurya is not the only missile that does such a flight , the Iskander-M/E flies at hypersonic speed at similar altitudes and uses various trajectory eg spiral during its terminal phase , pretty sure Shaurya must be having similar nifty profile during terminal phase.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: It is not mandatory for cruise missiles to have terrain-hugging or sea-skimming profiles. Even the BrahMos does not do so, and yet it is classified as a cruise missile. There is no gliding flight regime involved at all, either by the missile body or the warhead section. 50km at hypersonic speed for maximum reach is correct, but the Shaurya is not always expected to strike targets at maximum range. The target could even be 350km away. Depressed trajectory denotes the flight profile, whereas the term 'cruise' denotes the sustained speed during flight.
By the way, at IMDS 2011 here in St Petersburg I at last got confirmation from both Rosoboronexport and Yantar Shipyard JSC that the three Batch 2 Project 1135.6 FFGs will retain the original rail-launched Shtil-1 configuration, but will be upgradable to a VLS configuration at a later date if desired. Also, it has not yet been decided whether or not to equip the Project 1135.6 FFGs under construction for the Russian Navy with VL-Shtil, which is presently being proposed for the mid-life upgrade of the three Project 15 Delhi-class DDGs.

Austin said...

The Russian navy 1135.6 VLS system will most likely have Redut SAM similar to Gorshkov class frigate.

Austin said...

Prasun any thing interesting to share from IMDS ? A report on your visit will be good and some pictures.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: Plenty of interesting developments indeed, regarding the INS Vikramaditya, IAC-2, Project 17A prospects, Project 15 Delhi-class DDG mid-life upgrade details, refits of existing Tarantul-1 corvettes, and the Severnoye SDB-designed AOPV construction by Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. The Chief of the Naval Staff is here too visiting the expo. More about all this later, rest assured.