Indo-Israeli Barak-8 / MRSAM

[Ankit Kumar]

Wasn't the Navy going to be the first customer for the ER as was initially planned ?

Of course the initial plan envisaged the ER to go into the Vizag class destroyers, we know now that's not happening.

90km engagement range, with 50000feet + targetting capability is good and on par with naval terms actually.

For comparison, Aster 30 missiles also provide similar, or slightly better range and performance but almost at double the weight.

Even the Chinese. In their Type 052C and initial Type 052D ships have used HH9/A variants with max range of 105-120km. In Type 051C they used S300FM with 150km range, but those missiles are very heavy missiles. The longest range missiles of China are improved copies of 180km range missiles till now.

Russia will add 250km range 48N series in some of the vessels, but not yet.

So except USA, we are pretty much on par with Barak8 in basic Area Air Defence usage with the best of Europe or even China. Plus Navy calls Barak 8 as Long Range SAM.

Any SAM having longer range will come only in Project 18 Class.

 

[Ashwin]

Wasn't the Navy going to be the first customer for the ER as was initially planned ?

Of course the initial plan envisaged the ER to go into the Vizag class destroyers, we know now that's not happening.

Both unsubstantiated assumptions. IN calls Barak 8 LRSAM but it's not the ER version.

 

[Gautam]

Both unsubstantiated assumptions. IN calls Barak 8 LRSAM but it's not the ER version.

The wiki page states the following : Barak 8 - Wikipedia

"Levy said that initial operational capability (IOC) for Barak-8ER will first be declared for the naval variant, followed by IOC for the land variant. He declined to comment on a launch customer for Barak-8ER, but noted "existing Barak-8 customers will be interested in this configuration because it offers additional capability to their current system". The missile is expected to equip the Indian Navy's future Visakhapatnam-class destroyers."

citing articles from IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets and naval-technology.com, both of them pretty trustworthy sites as you would know. The only problem is these articles are old and there is nothing recent about the ER known. Which is why I inquired about the ER in the firsts place.

 

[Ashwin]

The wiki page states the following : Barak 8 - Wikipedia

"Levy said that initial operational capability (IOC) for Barak-8ER will first be declared for the naval variant, followed by IOC for the land variant. He declined to comment on a launch customer for Barak-8ER, but noted "existing Barak-8 customers will be interested in this configuration because it offers additional capability to their current system". The missile is expected to equip the Indian Navy's future Visakhapatnam-class destroyers."

citing articles from IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets and naval-technology.com, both of them pretty trustworthy sites as you would know. The only problem is these articles are old and there is nothing recent about the ER known. Which is why I inquired about the ER in the firsts place.

Barak8 and ER projects are independent of Indian versions (MRSAM,LRSAM later army version of MRSAM). India was a risk-sharing partner.

ER version exist and they even exported it.

Barak 8 ER in Azerbaijan

 

[Gautam]

This is an excellent read on the Barak 8. It gets the range figures wrong though.

India Israels Barak-8 SAM Development Project(s)

 

[randomradio]

BDL is the main manufacturer in India for Barak 8, they will likely supply the kits to them.

Indian Army has as of yet placed orders for 200 missiles for 5 regiments. Means rest 800 are for IAF.

200 missiles for 5 regiments is impossible.

The IA has ordered 40 batteries. The number of missiles ordered for the IA is unknown. But for 40 batteries, with just 32 active and 32 reserve missiles, the IA needs 2560 missiles. Actual numbers would be 2800 missiles at the minimum, not counting repeat orders in the future.

IAF and IN alone need up to 1500 missiles each.

Overall, the combined tri-services requirement should be well over 5000 missiles by the end of the next decade.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

200 missiles for 5 regiments is impossible.

The IA has ordered 40 batteries. The number of missiles ordered for the IA is unknown. But for 40 batteries, with just 32 active and 32 reserve missiles, the IA needs 2560 missiles. Actual numbers would be 2800 missiles at the minimum, not counting repeat orders in the future.

IAF and IN alone need up to 1500 missiles each.

Overall, the combined tri-services requirement should be well over 5000 missiles by the end of the next decade.

40 batteries or 40 launchers?
Boost for Army's air power: DRDO, Israel Aerospace Industries to produce medium-range missile system by 2020

What you are stating is eventual needs, what i am saying is initial confirm orders.

 

[randomradio]

40 batteries or 40 launchers?
Boost for Army's air power: DRDO, Israel Aerospace Industries to produce medium-range missile system by 2020

40 batteries.

40 launchers will barely make 1 regiment.

What you are stating is eventual needs, what i am saying is initial confirm orders.

It depends on what you are calling initial orders.

40 batteries with 160 launchers minimum will need 1280 missiles. Add 40 more launchers as reserve and you get 320 more missiles. So that's 1600 missiles as initial order. With a single reload, we need 3200 missiles in total.

To put things in perspective, when we bought Akash alone, the number of missiles ordered were well over 2000. And when we initially planned to buy S-400, we also planned to make 6000 missiles in India through offsets. And the tri-services Barak program is much bigger than S-400 or Akash.

QRSAM also, if IA buys it for all their 8 regiments, then just 1 regiment is 48 active launchers and 288 missiles without reserves, ie 2304 operational missiles without reserves in total for all 8 regiments.

Missile requirement for SAMs is always large, that's why Akash missile production rate is being increased to 1200 per year. For Barak, we may need twice that capacity.

 

[Paro]

40 batteries.

40 launchers will barely make 1 regiment.



It depends on what you are calling initial orders.

40 batteries with 160 launchers minimum will need 1280 missiles. Add 40 more launchers as reserve and you get 320 more missiles. So that's 1600 missiles as initial order. With a single reload, we need 3200 missiles in total.

To put things in perspective, when we bought Akash alone, the number of missiles ordered were well over 2000. And when we initially planned to buy S-400, we also planned to make 6000 missiles in India through offsets. And the tri-services Barak program is much bigger than S-400 or Akash.

QRSAM also, if IA buys it for all their 8 regiments, then just 1 regiment is 48 active launchers and 288 missiles without reserves, ie 2304 operational missiles without reserves in total for all 8 regiments.

Missile requirement for SAMs is always large, that's why Akash missile production rate is being increased to 1200 per year. For Barak, we may need twice that capacity.

@randomradio @Fafnir do you have any pic of 1 battery of missile trucks parked in one place?

 

[Gautam]

Israel Aerospace signs $50 million follow-up deal with Indian navy

The agreement involves a range of maintenance and other services for sub-systems of Israel Aerospace's naval medium range surface-to-air missile.

Reuters | Jul 17, 2019, 12.38 PM IST


State-owned defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries said on Wednesday it signed a $50 million follow-up contract to provide complementary missile systems to the Indian navy and India's MDL Shipyard.

The agreement involves a range of maintenance and other services for sub-systems of Israel Aerospace's naval medium range surface-to-air missile.

"This contract is a breakthrough as it advances us from system development and delivery to looking after the operational needs of our customers," said Boaz Levi, general manager of the Systems, Missiles & Space Group at Israel Aerospace.

Israel Aerospace signs $50 million follow-up deal with Indian navy

 

[Inquisitive]

why dont we go for progressive indigenisation of MRSAM/LRSAM just like Brahmos to reduce our import bill o/w gradually we're becoming a cash cow for Israel ?

Israel Aerospace signs $50 million follow-up deal with Indian navy

The agreement involves a range of maintenance and other services for sub-systems of Israel Aerospace's naval medium range surface-to-air missile.

Reuters | Jul 17, 2019, 12.38 PM IST
View attachment 8191

State-owned defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries said on Wednesday it signed a $50 million follow-up contract to provide complementary missile systems to the Indian navy and India's MDL Shipyard.

The agreement involves a range of maintenance and other services for sub-systems of Israel Aerospace's naval medium range surface-to-air missile.

"This contract is a breakthrough as it advances us from system development and delivery to looking after the operational needs of our customers," said Boaz Levi, general manager of the Systems, Missiles & Space Group at Israel Aerospace.

Israel Aerospace signs $50 million follow-up deal with Indian navy

 

[Gautam]

why dont we go for progressive indigenisation of MRSAM/LRSAM just like Brahmos to reduce our import bill o/w gradually we're becoming a cash cow for Israel ?

Who says we aren't doing that ?
When the Barak-8 LRSAM/MRSAM project kicked off the project responsibility breakdown was as follows :
Israel :

Seeker.
2-way data link.
Primary radar(MF-STAR).
Mission computers.
VLS for naval version.

India :

Dual pulse propulsion system.
pneumatic actuation systems.
motor arming/dis-arming technologies.
directional warhead
on-board flight control computers.

A lot of the Israeli contribution were a relatively one time purchases, like the MF-STAR radar. You don't need a new radar for every launch, so once acquired its going to stay and will not be expended away.

Some other systems are already being manufactured by Indian companies under license production from Israel. For example the seeker is no longer imported :

The mission computers are now made by TATA Advanced Systems Ltd.(TASL).
VLS indegenisation is frankly not worth the effort. I mean its not like we don't know how to make those.

The only thing that leaves them with is the 2 way data link. The Israelis have been adamant about not sharing anything about that, if you look at the whole picture its pretty evident why. Frankly this is the only thing they have left of high IPR value.

Unfortunately for us the ability of making a 2-way data link along with conformal antennas will prove to be a make-or-break thing for the Astra-2 BVRAAM. So DRDO decided to go it alone.

We have made some excellent progress in the conformal antennas front. Check post #61, #66, #67 and #68 on this thread :

Indian AESA Radar Developments

I've come across some research papers from DRDO indicating the first steps towards the making of 2-way data link. I seem to have lost them somewhere, will post them when I find them.

Given the progress on these areas, I am certain we can make our own data links and replace the Israeli made ones. Only question is when.

 

[Gautam]

The LB MF-STAR stands for Land Borne Multi Function-Search Track and Acquisition Radar. It is the land variant of the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR that the Kolkata class uses. It is probably larger though.

 

[Gautam]

Ninda Turtle visited BDL factory today for the official induction of Barak-8 LR-SAM/MR-SAM into the IAF.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1157693354185859072

 

[Amit228]

What is the advantage of 2 way datalink of MRSAM? does it means that missiles can be guided to the target in it's terminal phase by any third party system i.e awacs or other ground based radars, even if it's main radar remain to be switched off during operation.. is it achievable? Can any senior member shed light on it? Thanks in advance..

 

[randomradio]

What is the advantage of 2 way datalink of MRSAM? does it means that missiles can be guided to the target in it's terminal phase by any third party system i.e awacs or other ground based radars, even if it's main radar remain to be switched off during operation.. is it achievable? Can any senior member shed light on it? Thanks in advance..

It means it will communicate back when it has achieved lock on.

Another capability is you get the option to switch targets if a high value target is available in the area that wasn't initially picked up by the radar.

 

[Amit228]

It means it will communicate back when it has achieved lock on.

Another capability is you get the option to switch targets if a high value target is available in the area that wasn't initially picked up by the radar.

Thanks.. however.. can a solitary sam be guided by other third party system if it's integrated into net centric grid as like airforce has planed to integrate all sams into IACCS...
Example being.. a battery of MRSAM deployed close to border with it's main radar switched off (To fend of antiradiation missiles attack) integrated with AWACS nd S400.. thus can the mrsam barak 8 missiles be guided to the target by AWACS or S400.. without actually using it's own Mfstar radar..

Is it possible?
Coz i had read somewhere earlier where different sam systems can be used in conjunction to maintain surprise nd disguise..

 

[randomradio]

Thanks.. however.. can a solitary sam be guided by other third party system if it's integrated into net centric grid as like airforce has planed to integrate all sams into IACCS...
Example being.. a battery of MRSAM deployed close to border with it's main radar switched off (To fend of antiradiation missiles attack) integrated with AWACS nd S400.. thus can the mrsam barak 8 missiles be guided to the target by AWACS or S400.. without actually using it's own Mfstar radar..

Is it possible?

In theory, it can be done, it's a part of something called CEC, Cooperative Engagement Capability. But the SAM will have to be integrated with the other radar system as well, which costs a lot, is time consuming, requires a lot of testing and so on. And the problem here is the other radar will be too far away and will cause problems with communication over long distances. So you are better off using your own radar.

All the Barak 8s can be fired using any of the EL/M 2084s that we have. But if you are expecting its integration with the S-400, then that's not going to happen. The Russians and Israelis are not going to play that game.

What's more realistic is integration of the MRSAM and S-400 with the AWACS. This will allow the AWACS controllers to fire off SAMs on remote. And the height advantage removes a lot of blindspots when targets are in terrain-following mode. But again, the problem here is, over land in our geography, the AWACS will be further away than the SAM's own radar, which makes the radar data less accurate. It's a different case over seas, where the AWACS can easily be positioned between the ship and the threat, which allows the AWACS to be much closer to the target than the surface radar. The Americans have been doing this for decades now.

The most interesting concept would be to integrate the S-400's 40N6, 48N6 and 9M96E2 with the Super MKI. This combo would be completely unmatched. The radar data is more accurate than AWACS and the MKI can easily manage this because of the second pilot. One can only imagine an entire fleet of MKIs capable of cueing the 40N6 at max range against terrain-following missiles and aircraft. Nobody can get close.

As for your statement about protecting the radar from ARMs by switching it off, it's not as important anymore. SAMs are now so good that they can shoot down the ARM as well. The MRSAM can shoot down ARMs, cruise missiles and other types of PGMs. In the near future, we can even integrate lasers with the SAMs.

Coz i had read somewhere earlier where different sam systems can be used in conjunction to maintain surprise nd disguise..

That's just tactics, not technology.

 

[Amit228]

In theory, it can be done, it's a part of something called CEC, Cooperative Engagement Capability. But the SAM will have to be integrated with the other radar system as well, which costs a lot, is time consuming, requires a lot of testing and so on. And the problem here is the other radar will be too far away and will cause problems with communication over long distances. So you are better off using your own radar.

All the Barak 8s can be fired using any of the EL/M 2084s that we have. But if you are expecting its integration with the S-400, then that's not going to happen. The Russians and Israelis are not going to play that game.

What's more realistic is integration of the MRSAM and S-400 with the AWACS. This will allow the AWACS controllers to fire off SAMs on remote. And the height advantage removes a lot of blindspots when targets are in terrain-following mode. But again, the problem here is, over land in our geography, the AWACS will be further away than the SAM's own radar, which makes the radar data less accurate. It's a different case over seas, where the AWACS can easily be positioned between the ship and the threat, which allows the AWACS to be much closer to the target than the surface radar. The Americans have been doing this for decades now.

The most interesting concept would be to integrate the S-400's 40N6, 48N6 and 9M96E2 with the Super MKI. This combo would be completely unmatched. The radar data is more accurate than AWACS and the MKI can easily manage this because of the second pilot. One can only imagine an entire fleet of MKIs capable of cueing the 40N6 at max range against terrain-following missiles and aircraft. Nobody can get close.

As for your statement about protecting the radar from ARMs by switching it off, it's not as important anymore. SAMs are now so good that they can shoot down the ARM as well. The MRSAM can shoot down ARMs, cruise missiles and other types of PGMs. In the near future, we can even integrate lasers with the SAMs.



That's just tactics, not technology.

Many a thanks for the detailed reply.. so according to u.. what would be the most appropriate distance from the border where MRSAM would be placed? Say if it is placed 50 km from the border.. it can effectively fend of any PAF misadventure.. in their airspace for about 40km (max range of barak being 90km) if paf planes tries to come near the loc or international border then it will come under high pk of barak8 .. will it be wise to place mrsam so near to border(50km)??

And there were few articles about india only purchasing 40N6 nd 48N6E3,48N6E2... As these missiles are faster nd bulky but not effective to shoot down highly manuvereing fighter aircraft.. instead these missiles are meant to target cruise missile, ABM, awacs nd tankers.. nd we are not buying 9M96E2 meant to target highly agile enemy fighter aircraft as we already have MRSAM to fulfill this role..

does that imply we bought S400 to have ABM( albeit untested), counter cruise missiles (subsonic babur nd raad), nd target awacs or rather degrade awacs operating range in fear of killing zone of 40N6 missiles...

In all effectiveness how does S400 nd MRSAM play accordingly in future conflict scenarios.. what strategies shall we make in order to achieve maximum out of these systems?
Thanks..

 

[randomradio]

Many a thanks for the detailed reply.. so according to u.. what would be the most appropriate distance from the border where MRSAM would be placed? Say if it is placed 50 km from the border.. it can effectively fend of any PAF misadventure.. in their airspace for about 40km (max range of barak being 90km) if paf planes tries to come near the loc or international border then it will come under high pk of barak8 .. will it be wise to place mrsam so near to border(50km)??

MRSAM can be placed inside Pak also. After all, during war, the army will be taking their MRSAMs into Pak.

And there were few articles about india only purchasing 40N6 nd 48N6E3,48N6E2... As these missiles are faster nd bulky but not effective to shoot down highly manuvereing fighter aircraft.. instead these missiles are meant to target cruise missile, ABM, awacs nd tankers.. nd we are not buying 9M96E2 meant to target highly agile enemy fighter aircraft as we already have MRSAM to fulfill this role..

We are buying all the missiles meant for the S-400. Doesn't make sense not to get 9M96E2. It's just 1 truck with 16 missiles per battery, which is peanuts, versus an entire battery of MRSAMs.

Along with S-400, we need something like SPYDER and cannons, this will give us complete multi-tier capability. The Russians have proposed Tor and Pantsir, but SPYDER and an indendent cannon are better. Further enhanced by integrating the S-400 with MKI.

does that imply we bought S400 to have ABM( albeit untested), counter cruise missiles (subsonic babur nd raad), nd target awacs or rather degrade awacs operating range in fear of killing zone of 40N6 missiles...

S-400 can handle all of the above.

In all effectiveness how does S400 nd MRSAM play accordingly in future conflict scenarios.. what strategies shall we make in order to achieve maximum out of these systems?
Thanks..

Against PAF, a large chunk of their own airspace will be denied to them with the S-400. So there's not gonna be much of a fight if we move the S-400 to air bases closer to the border. If we move the S-400 deeper in the hinterlands, then PAF will be able to operate over their own area, but can't do much inside India.