The EXTRA projectile, which has served as inspiration for the Prahaar, has a range of 150km and carries a 125kg (275lb) warhead. Launch weight is about 430kg (990lb), and CEP is well within 10 metres. Equipped with a fibre-optic gyro-based inertial navigation system combined with a GPS receiver, the EXTRA uses an aft section fitted with stabilising fins and a solid-rocket motor. The warhead section is built as a modular compartment, designed to carry various types of sub-munitions or a unitary warhead. For example, it will be able to carry up to 400 AT/AP bomblets, scatterable mines, anti-runway munitions and similar loads. The fin-mounted control section will store the guidance and control avionics, driving four flight control surfaces for trajectory shaping. The Prahaar's payload compartment is being developed by the DRDO in cooperation with Israel Aircraft Industries’ (IAI) MLM Systems Integration Division and Israel Military Industries’ (IMI) Rocket Systems Division as a modular kit. By adjusting the ballistic trajectory of the missile to compensate for wind drift and other meteorological effects the EXTRA’s flight control system is claimed to have improved the accuracy of the missile by 4 times the average accuracy of existing unguided MBRL-launched rockets. The EXTRA’s sub-munitions are 30cm in diameter and 3.97 metres (13 feet) in length.—Prasun K. Sengupta
You mentioned LORA as the "inspiration" for this rocket system, but don't the design parameters more closely approximate the EXTRA system (more details at IMI's website)?
ReplyDeletePrasun Da, will Prahaar be able to evade the incoming HQ-9 SAM and destroy its radar & launchers etc?
ReplyDeleteAnd can it destroy PAF's sparda-2000 SAM system which are fixed and not mobile?
Prasun.......not understood the last sentence of your Post......"submunitions are 30cm in diameter and 3.96 meters" ???
ReplyDeleteMy dear Nava, the Indian Army was most impressed with the LORA when it was first demonstrated to a visiting Indian Army delegation to Israel way back in late 2004, and wanted at that time to begin a one-for-one replacement of existing liquid-fuelled Prithvi SS-150 missiles. But later, since the IDF itself decided to forego the LORA in favour of the EXTRA, the Indian Army too decided in favour of the EXTRA's design/performance parameters. Subsequently, along the lines of the business plan to co-develop the Barak-2/8 MR-SAM/LR-SAM, a similar military-industrial cooperation plan was put into effect for producing the EXTRA in India with 'Indian characteristics. So, just as the olive-green coloured ELM-2084 MMR has morphed into the low-visibility grey-coloured 'Arudhra MPR for the Indian Air Force, so will the EXTRA morph into the 'Prahaar' PGM in the next three years.
ReplyDeleteAnon@4.38PM: Air defence systems like the HQ-9 or Spada 2000 are optimised for intercepting combat aircraft, not hypersonic battlefield interdiction missiles like the Prahaar. Furthermore, the HQ-9 is used for protecting installations that are permanently static, such as air bases, bridges, railroad junctions, and warehouses. Such facilities will not be targetted by the Prahaar since, as the designation suggests, the Prahaar's targets will be strictly military and that too those that are deployed on the battlefield or are in their staging areas along a country's internal lines of communication (as in Pakistan's case), or external lines of communication (in China's case).
ReplyDeleteTo Prasun Da: Now it makes perfect sense. Labelling the Prithvi SS-150 as a battlefield support missile with very poor CEP was a fallacy perpetuated by the DRDO for far too long, and the arrival of Prahaar will finally enable the Indian Army to implement its pro-active strategies that have emerged post-OP Parakram.
ReplyDeleteTo Prasun: The TEL shown in scale-model form at Defexpo 2010 was generic only as far as the displayed missile round was concerned. Judging by the design configuration of the TEL, I would say that a six-round configuration is perfectly achievable.
ReplyDelete@Prasun: You've finally scored bulls' eye yet again, after first disclosing the reality about the Arudhra MPR and exposing the so-called DRDO-developed torpedo designs displayed in its brochure (and uploaded by LIVEFIST) to be Bofors Underwater Systems-built torpedoes. Hearty congrats!!!
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@6PM: Many thanks. Am now covering the IMDS 2011 expo in St Petersburg, Russia. Will be on the lookout for further expo-related details.
ReplyDeletePrasun Sir, but then so what will be tested later this month? LORA / EXTRA?? You're mincing your words and i can't understand (looking for a panadol!!!)
ReplyDeleteAnd Sir, this link says exactly what you say too!! http://defense-update.com/products/e/extra.htm
Regards,
Prabin Roy.
Equipped with latest technologies, Prahaar is a very useful weapon which combines all the good attributes of a short-range tactical missile and MBRL. It is suitable for all possible kinds of war theaters incorporating the elements of ghat as well as pratighat.
ReplyDeleteGreat to have you back sir...
ReplyDeleteYour articles are very informative and gives us indepth knowledge.
Its about Rafael fighter - what is main advantage of omni role fighter agains EF.
ReplyDeleteReally a good update.
ReplyDeleteapart from C-17, does india is ready to ink any project with US
But initially you said LORA sir??
ReplyDeletePrabin Roy
Ok, thanks. But AFAIK the IDF hasn't yet decided to adopt the EXTRA system. I wonder whether the Indian venture would serve to push down prices and perhaps also push the IDF in the right direction visa vi procurement...
ReplyDeleteThis is this -->
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread193011/pg1
To Mr Ra: Absolutely right. Especially the combination of a very low CEP missile and sensaor-fuzed and other smart munitions, which is what the Indian Army has been asking for since the mid-1990s. But the DRDO was able to only develop cluster munitions and AR/AP minelets and has still not been able to bring the Prithvi SS-150's CEP to less than 10- metres. That, as well as the SS-150's laborious launch preparation process, made it more of a liability rather than an asset. Now, in one stroke by collaborating with IAI and IMI, a product matching the Army's GSQR is at last in sight.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@7.23PM: Even the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is omnirole. In fact, at the moment, the Super Hornet is more omnirole (especially due to the sheer variety of PGMs it is qualified to launch) than the Rafale.
To Anon@7.32PM: The Javelin ATGM contarct has reportedly been inked, while that for the LW-155 ultraweight heli-mobile howitzer and the heavylift helicopter (Boeing's CH-47F Chinook) are ready for approval by the Cabinet Committee for National Security.
To Prabin Roy: Initially, yes. But I was contacted yesterday by those involved in the programme and they explained to me the design links between the LORA and EXTRA and confirmed that the Prahaar will indeed be based on the EXTRA and be optimised for operations unique to the future projected battlespace of the subcontinent. Hope that reduces your intake of Panadols (LoL!).
To Nava: Well, the possibility does exist, since the Prahaar/EXTRA will be procured by India in appreciable numbers (about 700) for equipping three Missile Groups (attached to the two field artillery divisions of the Indian Army), plus war reserves. This volume of procurement is necessary since the Indian Army is still years away from procuring 155mm/52-cal howitzers (towed, tracked and wheeled), as a result of which indirect fire-support PGMs are required 'yesterday' so as not to burden the Indian Air Force with
avoidable requests for battlefield air interdiction/close air support. It now remains to be seen if the Indian Navy too decides to procure them in shipborne configuration for land-attack purposes.
On which ships the Prahaar in shipborne configuration for land-attack purposes can be fitted, especially if those ships have plans for Brahmos or equivalent missiles.
ReplyDeleteBTW, is it worthwhile to fit them on some missile boats.
To Mr.Ra: For the Navy, missiles like the BrahMos are employed primarily for pinpoint strikes against hostile seaborne targets like DDGs and FFGs. The Navy's inventory of BrahMos therefore will be exclusively for anti-ship strikes. But when it comes to attacking shore-based naval air bases or naval armaments storage warehouses or naval coastal surveillance radar stations, missiles like the Prahaar will come in more handy. Consequently, such missiles will have to be carried by littoral combatant platforms like guided-missile corvettes such as the existing Tarantul-1s or Project 25 Kora-class vessels.
ReplyDeleteCorrect... Thanx.
ReplyDeleteHello Sir,
ReplyDeleteI have few queries regarding Shaurya and India's future LRCM (not Nirbhay)
1. Is Shaurya a tech demo or an active program?
2. Shaurya's present range is reportedly 750 km. Can this be increased to 2000-3000 km in future and used as a Ship/sub-borne LACM like Tomahawk?
3. What is the advantage of Brahmos 2 over Shaurya? I guess both are hypersonic cruise missiles...Does India gain any special tech from Brahmos2 that's not in Shaurya?
4. India is also developing the hypersonic LRCM? Are these all different projects owing to different service's requirements or variants of same missile?
Please forgive me if my questions appear naive. I am a complete layman.
Regards
Abhishek Bannerjee
Dear sir When will Prahar go into serial production
ReplyDeletePrahar warhead being just 125 kg ; Will it do any damage
Smerch warhead is 240 kg
Pinaka warhead is also 240 kg
The much Maligned Prithvi atleast dumped One TON of explosives on the enemy
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think 125 kg warhead is too small for such a missile. It should have been atleast 250 kgs if not more.
Prasun;
ReplyDeleteyou mean to say DRDO would only assemble CKD Kits (apart from L and T)? Or manufacture them under license? No input from DRDO, say Guidance system; propulsion motors etc??
Because I believe i read Dr Saraswat mentioning that it would be 100% indigenous. 100% indigenous manufacture or 100% tech also?
Atul
look at it logically dude, why would they have to "test fire" a missile that's bought off-the-shelf?
ReplyDeleteand if u read the report in the Hindu:
"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. Initially, the missile would be given to the Army and later to other services. "
I hope next you don't say Agni-v is gonna be Jericho... lol
Premnath
To Anon@8:30AM: Prahaar will go into sewries production within two years. One cannot compare the CEP of Prahaar with those of MBRLs like Smerch-M and Pinaka since the Prahaar is to be used for near-pinpoint accuracy (CEP of less than 10 metres), meaning one warhead for one target, while the MBRLs are area saturation weapons. The Prithvi SS-150 could definitely drop a 1-tonne warhead, but not directly over the enemy, but more than 200 metres away as the missile lacks accuracy. Today we are in the era of knowledge-based warfare through effects-based operations. The V-2, Prithvi SS-150 and R-17E SCUDs were developed for nwaging estimates-based warfare. That's the difference.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@9.40AM: I believe I've just answered that above.
To Atul: I never said anything about CKD- or SKD-based manufacture. On the contrary, as I had specifically explained above to Nava, the development process/production cycle of the Prahaar will be similar to that of the Barak-2/8 MR-SAM/LR-SAM programme. Dr Saraswat himself went on record during Aero India 2011 last February in saying that there's no use re-inventing the wheel and the DRDO's new mantra was 'smart military-industrial cooperation', for long gone are the days when any country could develop and produce new-generation weapon systems through 100% indigenous efforts.
'dude' Premnath@12:04PM, since you've tried to take the trouble to apply logical reasoning and even then have failed miserably due to your oversimplification of the issues, let's clear the fog: The Prahaar will be test-fired for the very same reason the BrahMos has been test-fired since 2001 and we all know what portion of the BrahMos hails from India and what comes from Russia. Secondly, we are talking about developing and testing a complete weapon system, and not just a guided-missile or PGM. This includes the weapon system's integration with the field artillery command, control and communications systems, integration with the Army's existing target acquisition ISTR platforms/systems, and validating the TEL's design/performance parameters including those of its integral RLG/INS-based land navigation system (like the Sgima-30 from SAGEM). So, 'dude Premnath', do take the trouble to read and absorb what's already been commented about above before adopting a smartarse attitude and making false allegations about me or anyone else claiming the Prahaar to having being bought off-the-shelf.
Dear Sir Sometime back There was a report of Artillerry Command and control System being implemented
ReplyDeleteIt was reported as Project Shakti
It was being said that with this new system the efficiency of Indian Artilerry would increase several times
Please give some information about how successful it has been
To Anon@3.09PM: The Shakti artillery C4I system has been under implementation from 2007 and is now being integrated with the Army's multi-spectral battlefield surveillance system. And when the battlespace management system and F-INSAS networks are introduced into service, the Shakti will be integrated with them as well. It is not the Shakti per se that will increase the field artillery's efficiency and lethality, but the overall network-centric design architecture of the Army's command decision information support system (CDISS) that will produce the desired results in a high-intensity conflict scenario.
ReplyDeleteEarlier you just copy-pasted specifications of Israeli EXTRA missile and now put a picture of it?
ReplyDeleteWhy?
ok pls answer - A/B/C or D
ReplyDeleteA. Prahar is a CKD LORA
B. Prahar is a CKD Extra
C. Prahar is indegenous
D. Prahar is a LORA-EXTRA Hybrid
E. Prahar is bought off-the-shelf
You seem very ambiguous... pls be cut and dry parsun...
To Anon@4.24PM: Because the specs of the Prahaar and EXTRA are one and the same.
ReplyDeleteAnon@5.13PM: None of the above. The Prahaar's joint India-Israel R & D effort is exactly like that of the Barak-2/8 MR-SAM/LR-SAM.
I remember a DRDO statement on TV when AAD was first tested. They said that it could be used as a 90km range SAM or adopted for the army in SSM role with a range of 150km.
ReplyDeleteAre tou sure that Prahaar is based on LORA and not AAD?
The launch weight of the Prahaar is not the same as that of the AAD. As such the Prahaar is neither based on the LORA, nor on the AAD.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteColonel JitendraVyas here
Mr Prasun,
Me being witnessed a trial launch of Prithvi ,I assure you that the accuracy of the system has been brought down to 10mtrs to 2-3mtrs.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!!!pls stop being a gossip blogger and please show me where is your link/Interview with MR.saraswat that shows Prahaar is IND0-ISRAEL JV ???
ReplyDeletehi Pasun da
ReplyDeletecan u please confirm Prahaar info in regards with this
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/07/drdo-hopes-to-impress-army-with-prahaar.html
now that there is a lot of difference between what u have said and what tarmak blog says .. please confirm
It is totally up to you whom to believe and whom not to believe. Just read the comments posted on this issue in my latest posting.
ReplyDeletehttp://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/07/here-comes-prahaar.html.
ReplyDeleteNow what you have to say Guptaji?? The missile looks exactly similar to that of PAD (Indian Ballistic Missile System). Oh, it is a photoshopped image, isn't it?? Think before you write.
Well Hariji, looks like it is you that needs to think more before writing, since you're unable to distinguish between the PAD, PDV and AAD missiles. Do bother to do some fundamental research first (if it not asking for too much of your intellect) so that you're able to visually distinguish between the PAD, PDV and AAD missiles, before offering advice to others. As I had said numerous times before, assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
ReplyDeleteits great news to have prahar out .. may be ur guess was not bulls eye .. any way great to read abt LORA and EXTRA
ReplyDeleteTo Technology, Photography & Travel: There wasn't any guesswork on my part, but those who assumed that the Prahaar will be a mirror-image of EXTRA were the ones guessing. I can't be held responsible for the erroneous assumptions of others. And it is far too early to rejoice over the birth of Prahaar since the launch rocket is not quite what the end-user--the Indian Army--has long sought for. More about it later tonight and a comprehensive analysis of both the Prithvi-2 and Prahaar will appear in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the wordings match with the following article..Did you write that one to..?
ReplyDeletehttp://defense-update.com/products/l/lora.htm
To saurav jha: If you're referring to the three-element design configuration, that remark was first made on July 2, 2011 by Avinash Chander, the DRDO's Chief Controller, (Missile & Strategic Systems). Both the LORA and EXTRA follow the three-element design configuration, which has also been implemented on the Mach 4 Prahaar, which uses the AAD's missile body. The AAD in its endo-atmospheric 'avatar' was dead two years ago since the DRDO has decided to develop the AAD-2 as the definitive endo-atmospheric interceptor design.
ReplyDeletePrasun da;
ReplyDeleteI have been a regular reader of deference research across the blogs i believe in taking all info available so please just ignore people who try to discredit u ...
To Technology, Photograpy and Travel: No worries. Many thanks. The August 2011 issue of FORCE will contain an in-depth analysis of the Prahaar's R & D programme which began way back in 1998. It will contain several photos of the Prahaar's sub-systems and components/avionics developed by RCI and ASL. The same issue will also describe NLOS-BSMs of Chinese origin with photos, especially the P-20 Hatf-9/Nasr.
ReplyDeleteis rahaar accepted by army for production? when cqn we expect it to be inducted..
ReplyDeleteshiv anand