Israel Aerospace Industries is showing a full-scale mockup of the Barak 8 surface to air missile (SAM) for the first time at the IMDEX maritime defense show, which opened in Singapore today. Being co-developed with India, Barak 8 is also destined to equip Israel's next missile frigates, possibly based on the US Littoral Combat Ship. (A mockup without the full-length missile was on show at Euronaval last fall.)
Key features of the 70 km-range Barak 8 missile are an active radar seeker and a dual-pulse solid rocket motor. The first motor pulse propels the weapon through most of its trajectory while the second fires as the missile approaches its target, giving it the energy necessary to defeat evasive action or random weaving. The active seeker means that the missile is autonomous in the endgame, leaving the ship's radar free to track other targets. The missile launcher comprises an eight-round module, three or more of which could make up a typical system.
Also new from IAI-Elta is the EL/M-2258 Alpha (advanced lightweight phased array) radar - visible behind the missile. It uses the same S-band transmit/receive modules as the four-face, static EL/M-2248 developed for the Barak 8 system, but is a single-face radar with both mechanical and electronic scanning in azimuth. It offers 360-degree, electronic-only and sector-scan options. This makes it lighter and more compatible with topweight limits on small ships.
70 km range isn't enough nowdays when anti radiation missiles have range of over 100km along with speed of mach4
and supersonic antiship missiles can be launched from well outside the engagement range of barak-8
well sm-2 and aster30 are superior to this and longer range missiles available from russia as well
any guess how good is CHINESE C BAND AESA radar on their destroyer along with NAVAL HQ-9
The same goes for the missile.
The motor is Indian, not Israeli, and dual pulse unit is from DRDL.
The OBC, Navigation unit are also likely to be Indian.
The seeker, datalink will be Israeli. The launchers, the all critical C3I and the network interface to tie into Indian ADGES - again from DRDO.
So there will be a substantial contribution footprint from the Indian side.
Coming to range :
- Raw range by itself is no panacea. The point is to see what is the system directed against. Its clearly meant for low flying aircraft & strikers, and a 70 km range fits in well with the limitations of a GB radar. The long ranges you cite are slant ranges achieved at height versus non maneuvering targets, IOW its apples to oranges.
Second - there is nothing to stop the Barak development team from following what their peers have done worldwide, ie put a booster on the individual SAM for increasing the outer engagement envelope to give ranges like the ones you have mentioned. Point is whether the IAF feel its necessary.
- Russian, MBDA missiles are good, but specialised and available off the shelf. Their is very little customization available to the Indian side. In this case the Indian team is able to drive the development of the system from the beginning itself, and have access to the core technology elements to continue the systems evolution. That is not going to be available with any S-3XX series SAM for instance.
Finally, for information about the Chinese AESA, look at UPIAsia.com's report on it from Kanwa.
The PRC has a very creditable radar development effort but are lagging in some areas. I would rate the system as inferior to the MFSTAR et al in terms of technology but still quite potent in terms of performance. It will have a respective range, ECCM and tracking capability making it a threat.
Russian, MBDA missiles are good, but specialised and available off the shelf.
----------------------------------------------
it shows u know nothing
russia is negotiating with turkey to sell s400 system with 100% tech tranfer,so it is likely that if india buys this system or s3xx ,tech transfer won't be problem
the radar is being codeveloped by India & Israel - there is a DRDO team working on it.
The same goes for the missile.
The motor is Indian, not Israeli, and dual pulse unit is from DRDL.
The OBC, Navigation unit are also likely to be Indian.
The seeker, datalink will be Israeli. The launchers, the all critical C3I and the network interface to tie into Indian ADGES - again from DRDO.
----------------------------------------------
venkat sir first learn something
MFSTAR is fully isareli ,india will just license produce it ,and there is no tech tranfer for seekers,datalink
and if india can build rohini radar which is enough to support 70 km SAM
and if india can build propulsion motor,dual pulse unit,navigation ,C3I system,launchers so what else is remaining
so it shows every thing incluing 150km range radar available in india
so why not just procure seekers,data link OFF THE SHELF from israel,and why their is need to go with israelis when everything else available in india except seeker and guidance(no tech transfer for these)
and seeker and guidance anyway has to be bought off the shelf despite deal is called codevelopment
so why not procure seekers and guidance off the shelf and do everything else in india ,so what is the need to go with israel
----------------------------------------
core tech elements are seekers and guidance for which there is no tech transfer
and everything else india can build at home
dear shudra you need to brush up on your learning. More awareness and less sarcasm will help.
>>>MFSTAR is fully isareli ,india will just license produce it ,and there is no tech tranfer for seekers,datalink
Wrong.
The MFSTAR for the IN BARAK is not fully Israeli but driven by Indian requirements as well.
Please ask BEL and DRDO people working on the program as we speak.
Second- there is another system for the land based BARAK also in development which is also being developed. It should be ready in the next couple of years. The initial work has already been done.
Third - do you work in DRDO to know about the seekers and datalink? I think not. You will be surprised by what is the Barak program in depth.
I wont comment on it till more data is released but work your way from existing programs where seekers and datalinks are utilized and you will have your answer.
>>>and if india can build rohini radar which is enough to support 70 km SAM
Rohini is a surveillance radar built around 2 vehicles, and for long range volume surveillance.
The radars for the Barak will be built using both ELTAs radar experience as well as the tech DRDO has developed via several programs. They have moved to AESA in a big way, and the Barak systems will utilize these.
It will be consequently much adaptable in terms of ECCM ability and not just raw range as you are looking at.
>>>unit,navigation ,C3I system,launchers so what else is remaining
A functioning SAM system is more than just its discrete units. India has gained experience in several key systems via its IGMDP, PAD and Akash (even Trishul) programs, but the issue is to ramp up quickly and deliver systems on a very demanding schedule using the latest gen tech. To this end, we are co-opting Israeli infrastructure, manpower and expertise. The limited resources (mainly manpower) in India are spread across many strategic and tactical programs. This impacts time, which the services simply dont have. The Barak program allows us to give a state of the art system in a timeframe which still meets their needs, this is possible only via a JV, given the number of programs we have.
>>>so it shows every thing incluing 150km range radar available in india
Yes it is, but the question is of time and moving to the "next level". My simple point is - you have the Rohini - next you should have something even better! And whats more, you even deploy such a system (of systems) in a reasonable timeframe!
>>>so why not just procure seekers,data link OFF THE SHELF from israel,and why their is need to go with israelis when everything else available in india except seeker and guidance(no tech transfer for these)
This is perhaps the biggest myth I read on internet, that you can procure everything off the shelf and everything is fine.
Why will IAI give you seekers OTS when they can pitch their own missile development and bypass you? Where is their buy-in? And secondly, even if you procure these systems OTS and integrate, think of the number of programs going on in parallel, and the resources India has. The Barak program leverages manpower and infrastructure both in India and Israel. Our infrastructure is already loaded up with current programs. They had "some" spare capacity. It doesnt come for free, nor does their insight into doing things differently obtained via the Arrow, Derby, Python, SpyDer programs.
>>>core tech elements are seekers and guidance for which there is no tech transfer
Wrong! Guidance is already in Indian hands, and as regards TOT for seekers, it is not a question of tech transfer but joint development.
>>and paying $ 2.5 billion to israelis for just seekrs and guidance
No - the Israelis are being paid for the complete lifecycle involvement of their development team to operationalize a SAM system. That is what codevelopment means. There will be Indians there, and some folks from Israel here. Each will contribute both ready systems, tech and joint programs to get new items which are not ready.
>>and seeker and guidance anyway has to be bought off the shelf despite deal is called codevelopment
so why not procure seekers and guidance off the shelf and do everything else in india ,so what is the need to go with israel
Seekers are not!= guidance
And they are NOT being bought off the shelf!
They are being developed.
And the money translates into a program for the future, where you get a lot of process insight into an industry where nobody else shares technology.
Its very simple - India will work with ANYONE who has the requisite ability to meet our needs in specific areas. There are only a few manufacturers (OEMs) in the world who can meet these need.
russia is negotiating with turkey to sell s400 system with 100% tech tranfer,so it is likely that if india buys this system or s3xx ,tech transfer won't be problem
Shudra
Dont make a joke out of yourself by believing everything you read on the internet, including the stupid "100% tech transfer" phrase.
For one thing it is clear you have no interaction with the D industry. But I do.
Turkey or any country or even India may ask for the moon as a negotiating tactic, but even if Russia gives it we wont be able to utilize it in a reasonable amount of time, especially if it is the first system of its kind we are working on via TOT.
This is not HAL's MiG complex with 4 decades of working with Russian technology and managing to get something out of it.
Russian systems are built around GOST, not MIL standards. They dont use MilSpec COTS components but Russian proprietary hardware. Often their software is not front-loaded but hardwired into closed black boxes which are impossible to reverse engineer or even decipher, despite having documentation.
India paid money through its nose for Russia to move to open standards via the MKI's aviation architecture. And even there, integration takes time and is resource intensive.
The T-90, less said the better. It was a mess. The only good thing that came out of that mess was that it effectively killed the attempt to push 152 mm Arty into India as an "interim" program while the joke of the 155mm system went on.
The S-3XX systems are capable, but their logistical footprint is a mess. They were built for a nation which is willing to pay through its nose for a system that is absurdly over-engineered in certain areas, and is behind the curve in others but compensates via workarounds.
Its not an ideal solution for India by any means. Split surveillance, sector scan, fire control radars. An internal C3I which is heck to integrate with any other national grid. Spares and consumables reliant on a Russian defense industry which still has issues meeting any sort of timetable which is lesser than a year in scope.
If India had acquired the S-3XX in depth, the force budget would have been an utter black hole to try and keep them in operational serviceability.
Its no wonder the PRC is choosing to continue its development of a local HQ series clone, even if it offers lower performance.
Lastly- I believe in a healthy debate, but I dont intend to spend my time putting up with random abuse "you dont know anything" or "first learn something" this or that. You want to have a debate, keep it healthy and I might check in.
Otherwise there is no value add for me to even attempt to put what I know on the table.