NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Nag, Nag, Nag

July 10, 2009: After two decades of development, India's DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organization) has completed work on the Nag ("Cobra") anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). The 93 pound missile has a 18 pound warhead and is "fire and forget" (the operator gets the target in the cross hairs, and fires the missile that will remember where the target is.) The Nag moves at 230 meters a second for up to 6,000 meters (8,000 if air launched.) The Nag is a top attack missile, that detonates its tandem (to defeat reactive armor) warhead when above the vehicle, and thus easily penetrates the thinner top armor. The Indian Army is buying 4,000, and an air-launched (from aircraft or helicopter) version is being developed. The Nag is very similar to the U.S. Hellfire. Nag will mainly be mounted on armored vehicles (two, four missile, launchers). The missile is really too heavy to be used by infantry, while the Milan is light enough.

Nag is said to be replacing Milan ATGMs, but it really isn't a Milan replacement. India ordered another 4,100 Milans earlier this year, and some 30,000 of these have already been produced in India, under license from European firm MBDA, over the past 30 years. They have also produced nearly 3,000 launchers.

The basic Milan is a 1.2 meter long, 125mm, 7.1 kg (16 pound) missile. It has a minimum range of 400 meters, and maximum range of 2,000 meters. At max range, the missile takes about 13 seconds to reach its target. The missile is guided to the target by the operator via a thin wire. The launcher weighs 21 kg (46 pounds). The missile can penetrate about a meter of armor, making it effective against all but the most modern tanks (M-1, Challenger, Leopard II). The wire guided missile concept was developed by the Germans during World War II, for use against American bombers. The Indians pay about $30,000 per Milan missile, and have had good success with them in combat. Since the 1970s, over 350,000 Milan missiles, and 30,000 launchers have been built worldwide. More modern ATGM are wireless and require much less effort on the part of the operator, but they are more expensive.

A replacement for Milan would be something like the U.S. Javelin ATGM (anti-tank guided missile), that was introduced in 2002.  The Javelin weighs 49 pounds (with disposable launch tube and battery/seeker coolant unit) and is fired from a 14 pound CLU (command launch unit). The CLU contains a 4x day sight and a 9x heat sensing night sight. The missile has a tandem (two warheads, to blast through reactive armor) that can hit a target straight on, or from the top. This latter capability enables the Javelin to destroy any existing tank (including the U.S. M1) with its 18 pound warhead. Maximum range is 2500 meters. Best of all, the seeker on the missile is "fire and forget." That is, once the operator gets the target in the CLU crosshairs and fires the missile, the computer and seeker in the missile warhead memorizes the target and homes in on it. The infantry love this, because it allows them to take cover once the missile is fired.

Since ATGMs first saw action three decades ago, operators quickly discovered that in the time it took (up to 15 seconds) for the missile to reach its target, enemy troops would often shower them with machine-gun fire. Another Javelin feature is "soft launch", where the missile is popped out of the launch tube by a small explosive charge, small enough to allow the Javelin to be fired from inside a building. Once the missile is about eight meters out, the main rocket motor ignites. The minimum range is, however, is 75 meters. It takes about 20 seconds to reload a CLU after a missile has been fired.

India's state run DRDO is a network of 51 weapons and technology laboratories, employing over 30,000 people (20 percent of them scientists and engineers.) DRDO has been late in completing weapons development programs for half a century. Efforts to shape up DRDO have consistently failed. It's all about politics (DRDO provides jobs for well connected people) and nationalism (India wants to produce its own high tech weapons.) DRDO has failed in most all areas (small arms, tanks, missiles and warplanes). The failures have grown over the years, and created louder calls for reforms.

 DRDO has had some successes, which it publicizes as energetically as it can. It tries to play down the failures, or simply tout them as partial successes. But compared to defense industries in other nations, DRDO is an underperformer, and highly resistant to reform.

Nag was threatened with cancellation several times, but DRDO finally got it right. However, Nag is basically a Hellfire clone. But the U.S. Hellfire entered service 25 years ago. To the DRDO, this is not a problem. That's because DRDO is part of an effort to create a world class arms industry. To do that, you sometimes have to reinvent the wheel while you are catching up to the front runners.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MURPHY'S LAW: Limping Pilots Keep UAVs On The Ground


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Chitresh Verma    read this article before talking about DRDO    7/10/2009 2:58:08 PM
link
 
 

Extensive and irritating export regulations are pushing the US space and defence-related industries to the wall in a time of recession. When will the Americans learn, asks Radhakrishna Rao

Image: CMT Inc.The news that the US has stalled the supply of two gas turbines by General Electric Corp (GE) for India's new stealth warship 'Shivalik' should not really come as a big surprise, as America has a history of imposing last-minute sanctions on defence deals. The reason cited in this instance is that America is ''reviewing its defence relationship'' with several countries including India.

The US could end up destroying its once booming space, defence and high tech industries through the sustained implementation of export control regulations. The so-called International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) managed by the US state department is proving to be an albatross around the neck of these enterprises.

The highly controversial ITAR was originally conceived as an instrument to prevent the proliferation of weapons by curbing the export of sensitive components of space technology, which by its very nature is a dual use system.

The technological subsystems developed for a launch vehicle meant to put a civilian satellite into orbit can with some modification be adopted for a long range missile capable of carrying a destructive warhead. Similarly, a satellite featuring an earth imaging system designed to monitor natural resources can also be deployed for surveillance and reconnaissance.

It would seem that the US wants to maintain its position as the unchallenged global defence leader by blocking the flow of technology to other countries. But the process is proving be counter-productive, as it has hit the profitability of American space hardware manufacturers hard in terms of business lost in a time of recession.

This in turn means that the American space industry has fewer funds to invest in research and development of new technologies which would strengthen the already dominant US position as the global technology powerhouse.

Significantly, during his election campaign, President Obama while referring to the successful Indian lunar probe Chandrayaan-1 and the spectacular Chinese space walk had expressed his concern over the US losing its dominance in the exploration of the final frontier.

President Obama had also pointed out that ITAR, with its exasperating and tedious rules, had inflicted huge damage on the once vibrant American space industry. He said ITAR has also put defence and associated high industrial ventures into a ''downward spiral''.

America is the loser
Image: CMT Inc.It was the stringent export regulation that spelled doom for the American supercomputer outfit Cray. The company was prevented from exporting its high end super computing machines on the ground that it could be diverted for military use, and had not option but to shut shop. This is just one example of what ITAR had done to the American high tech industry.

The American obsession with the possibility of sensitive technologies getting 'misused' has driven countries and organizations from across the world source their needs from elsewhere, where there are no such roadblocks.

A clear indication of the falling fortunes of the American space industry is that its share of commercial satellite production has plummeted to 50 per cent from more than 80 per cent in the first half of the last decade.

Countries are realising that they can buy whatever they need from elsewhere without going through the cumbersome, costly and complicated export regulation formalities. For instance, the Indian Space Research Organisation found easier to get the radiation hardened circuits for use in its INSAT satellite system from European sources.

Counter-productive strategy
On another plane, the American export restrictions have prompted countries like India and China to develop the hardware they need indigenously. To a large extent, the spirit of self reliance and confidence permeating the Indian and Chinese space efforts are a result of the American export control regime.

Following the US sanctions after India's nuclear tests in 1998, ISRO was denied many of the critical components it need for its projects. However, ISRO managed to either develop the components it needed in-house or to get them from Western Europe.

The fully home-made cryogenic engine stage developed by ISRO, which will replace the Russian-supplied upper stage of the three-stage geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) during its flight planned for July 2009, can be attributed to America's technological bullying.

In the early 1990s, the US had coerced an emaciated and politically turbulent Russia into going back on its commitment of transferring the critical cryogenic engine technology to India. It now finds, no doubt to its dismay, that India's own cryogenic engine is ready to fly.

A spokesman of  the Nevada-based Bigelow Aerospace has caustically pointed out, ''If the purpose of ITAR is to lose billions of dollars of business, ship jobs overseas and the Iranians and the Chinese get the same technology anyway, then mission accomplished.''

In fact, a survey of companies supplying space hardware carried out in 2007 by the US Air Force Research Laboratory showed that export control was the biggest barrier to accessing the overseas market.

Recently, P S Subramanyam, director of the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which has developed and light-tested India's light combat aircraft Tejas, made the point that the 1998 US sanctions was the best thing that could have happened to India's scientific efforts, as it spurred Indian scientists and engineers to develop these technologies and systems by themselves.

''When officials from BAE Systems, the third largest defence manufacturer in the world and part of the Eurojet consortium that makes the Typhoon fighter, came to see Tejas, they were amazed. For it has the latest configuration and it is completely indigenous,'' said Subramanyam.

US killing its space dominance
Despite US export restrictions, both India and China have made some ground in promoting their launch vehicles to put the satellite payloads of international customers into space.

The American policy that a satellite built in USA or a satellite carrying US made components cannot be launched from countries like India and China has contributed in a big way to the declining orders for American satellite manufacturing outfits; Indian and Chinese space vehicles are far more cost effective than their American and European counterparts.

Developed countries too have been irritated by IRTA sanctions. The leading European space technology outfit Thales Alenia has made it clear that it would build spacecraft without any American hardware or components. Similarly, the European Space Agency (ESA) has decided to promote the production of many components it needs in Europe, and build ''ITAR Free'' launch vehicles and satellites.

In particular, the cost and delay involved in importing high tech components from the US continues to drive away global customers from approaching American companies. Even for the American companies keen on exporting space related components and hardware, it is a troublesome and costly procedure to go through ITAR formalities.

The progressive decline in the fortunes of the American space industry as a result of zealous application of export control act could result in the termination of many product lines that have a limited domestic demand. This could in the long run force the US itself to source components required for its space programme from outside the country, spelling the death of its dominance in space exploration.

Unreliable defence partner
And of course, the US track record in dealing with the export of defence hardware and technology has made it a notoriously unreliable defence partner. The US insistence on the End User Certification agreement has been particularly galling to buyers of the American defence hardware.

India has already told the US, which aims to replace Russia as the world's largest supplier of defence equipment, that the annual physical verification of the defence hardware, which has already been purchased at a great cost, should end.

For instance, as per the existing US defence trade regulations, three jets bought from Boeing to fly Indian leaders would be annually inspected by the American officials. New Delhi considers this a clear infringement of national sovereignty.

In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in his report to the Indian Parliament had come down heavily on the Ministry of Defence for agreeing to the end user verification while buying the US warship 'Trenton' renamed INS Jalashwa.

There is also every indication that India would succumb to US pressure for the end user verification agreement in the supply of eight P-81 long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft from Boeing and six C-130 J transport helicopters from Lockheed Martin.

Both Boeing and Lockheed are in the race for the 126 medium, multi role combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force. But as things stand now, the US companies stand little chance as its government does not seem inclined to doing away with this clause covering arms purchases.

Similarly, the restrictions on the resale of US defence hardware could prove a big impediment in the way of American emerging as a favoured defence partner of India.  Boeing vice-president of international strategy for integrated defence systems business development Jeffrey Kohler says, ''There will be a serious blow to the relationships and obviously, it would be virtually impossible to US defence companies to walk with the Indians.''

The much-hyped Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement has so far not helped matters in smoothening Indo-US defence ties. Nonetheless, Ravi Vohra, director of the New Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation, believes that in its own interest, the US will take steps to remove the irritants in the way of defence hardware export. But then it is always difficult to read the mind of the American bureaucratic and political set-up.

 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       7/10/2009 9:07:26 PM
With thinking like this, I'm not surprised India has done so poorly in developing their own systems. The article has nothing positive to say.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       7/12/2009 12:56:27 AM

So let me get this straight........Americans are selfish because we place limits and conditions on our defense and technology exports, but you don't need it because you can build all your super, high technology equipment on your own anyway?  Ok then, so why don't you?  The reason countries like India buys foreign weapons and technology is because they can't build it themselves.  To date India has never designed a fighter that even comes close to matching the stuff we built thirty years ago, and it took India decades to design and build a main battle tank that STILL isn't ready for service.  They can't even seem to design a decent rifle.  Yet somehow India is still able to maintain this myth that they have a world class military and are among the technological leaders in the world.  This would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that most Indians seriously believe this. 

 
Quote    Reply

Chitresh Verma    REPLY   7/12/2009 11:12:29 AM
If USA has sell the out date weapons like Hellfire of 1970s to country like India which is not enemy  of US then India will developing Nag missile. And US companies have also earn some $$.But there is problem that is US attitude to India that led to establishment of DRDO to develop US deny weapons .
 
Quote    Reply

pmukherjee       7/12/2009 12:56:13 PM

With thinking like this, I'm not surprised India has done so poorly in developing their own systems. The article has nothing positive to say.


Yeah, but the US needs to sell the high grade stuff it makes, does n't it? With the US government buying lesser and lesser for its own military, unless those garguantan industrial houses sell abroad, they will be forced to close down and add another few million to an ever swelling unemployment figure. Is n't this exactly what most of the western media has been predicting for Russia for decades with much glee? After all, even with the Saudis bored with their camel races and wanting new toys to entertain themselves with, there is a limit to how many F-16s they will buy. The Americans need genuine buyers with valid and pressing defense concerns. Countries which are not hostile to the US,even inclined to be friendly and that is where India comes in. Yet it is your government's archaic policies which give US the reputation of being an unreliable supplier of defense hardware. The US industry wants these deals, yet the US Govt adds unwanted spokes to the already overladen wheel. I agree with Mr Verma, if India need a certain technology, she will get it. We may get it from Russia,Western Europe or may even have to reinvent the wheel for it. If the Americans dont give it we will get it else where. In the meanwhile, US has achieved nothing and has lost considerable business in the process. The earlier the US realises this truth, the better for all concerned.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    What crap   7/13/2009 12:23:49 AM



With thinking like this, I'm not surprised India has done so poorly in developing their own systems. The article has nothing positive to say.






Yeah, but the US needs to sell the high grade stuff it makes, does n't it? With the US government buying lesser and lesser for its own military, unless those garguantan industrial houses sell abroad, they will be forced to close down and add another few million to an ever swelling unemployment figure. Is n't this exactly what most of the western media has been predicting for Russia for decades with much glee? After all, even with the Saudis bored with their camel races and wanting new toys to entertain themselves with, there is a limit to how many F-16s they will buy. The Americans need genuine buyers with valid and pressing defense concerns. Countries which are not hostile to the US,even inclined to be friendly and that is where India comes in. Yet it is your government's archaic policies which give US the reputation of being an unreliable supplier of defense hardware. The US industry wants these deals, yet the US Govt adds unwanted spokes to the already overladen wheel. I agree with Mr Verma, if India need a certain technology, she will get it. We may get it from Russia,Western Europe or may even have to reinvent the wheel for it. If the Americans dont give it we will get it else where. In the meanwhile, US has achieved nothing and has lost considerable business in the process. The earlier the US realises this truth, the better for all concerned.


Ok, so India is actually doing us a favor by buying our stuff and we are damn lucky to have them as a customer?  Hmmm, I see.  Not only that, but we should be so grateful that our dear friends and close allies the Indians are buying our stuff that we should sell them whatever they want with no strings attached?  Yeah, right.  The reason that the United States places limitations on our technology and weapons exports is because we don't want that technology ending up being used against us or tranferred to our enemies.  We place limitations on weapons like the Hellfire because we don't want to see them blowing up our tanks in a future battlefield.  If a client really wants to buy our weapons they will agree to our conditions for purchasing them.  If they do so they will possess some of the most advanced weapons systems in the world---weapons that have been proven effective in combat time and time again.  We can't prevent the Indians from developing copies of earlier models of the Hellfire, but developing those weapons to match the modern day Hellfire will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money.  India has demonstrated time and again that is largely inept at developing high tech (or even low tech) weapons systems, so I would dare say they would probably end up spending more money developing their own weapons than they would if they simply bought them from us or the Russians.  Speaking of the Russians, the Indians could buy their stuff if they wanted to (God knows they have plenty of times in the past), but as they say "buyer beware".  The Russian stuff is certainly cheaper and easier to maintain, but the only thing the Russian stuff does better than our stuff is blow up in combat.  Just ask the Egyptians, Syrians, and Iraqis, among others. 
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       7/13/2009 12:32:28 AM
"The Russian stuff is certainly cheaper and easier to maintain, but the only thing the Russian stuff does better than our stuff is blow up in combat.  Just ask the Egyptians, Syrians, and Iraqis, among others."
 
They sometimes also happen to open cans up. Just ask the Israelis!
 
Quote    Reply

pmukherjee       7/13/2009 5:27:19 AM







With thinking like this, I'm not surprised India has done so poorly in developing their own systems. The article has nothing positive to say.














Yeah, but the US needs to sell the high grade stuff it makes, does n't it? With the US government buying lesser and lesser for its own military, unless those garguantan industrial houses sell abroad, they will be forced to close down and add another few million to an ever swelling unemployment figure. Is n't this exactly what most of the western media has been predicting for Russia for decades with much glee? After all, even with the Saudis bored with their camel races and wanting new toys to entertain themselves with, there is a limit to how many F-16s they will buy. The Americans need genuine buyers with valid and pressing defense concerns. Countries which are not hostile to the US,even inclined to be friendly and that is where India comes in. Yet it is your government's archaic policies which give US the reputation of being an unreliable supplier of defense hardware. The US industry wants these deals, yet the US Govt adds unwanted spokes to the already overladen wheel. I agree with Mr Verma, if India need a certain technology, she will get it. We may get it from Russia,Western Europe or may even have to reinvent the wheel for it. If the Americans dont give it we will get it else where. In the meanwhile, US has achieved nothing and has lost considerable business in the process. The earlier the US realises this truth, the better for all concerned.






Ok, so India is actually doing us a favor by buying our stuff and we are damn lucky to have them as a customer?  Hmmm, I see.  Not only that, but we should be so grateful that our dear friends and close allies the Indians are buying our stuff that we should sell them whatever they want with no strings attached?  Yeah, right.  The reason that the United States places limitations on our technology and weapons exports is because we don't want that technology ending up being used against us or tranferred to our enemies.  We place limitations on weapons like the Hellfire because we don't want to see them blowing up our tanks in a future battlefield.  If a client really wants to buy our weapons they will agree to our conditions for purchasing them.  If they do so they will possess some of the most advanced weapons systems in the world---weapons that have been proven effective in combat time and time again.  We can't prevent the Indians from developing copies of earlier models of the Hellfire, but developing those weapons to match the modern day Hellfire will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money.  India has demonstrated time and again that is largely inept at developing high tech (or even low tech) weapons systems, so I would dare say they would probably end up spending more money developing their own weapons than they would if they simply bought them from us or the Russians.  Speaking of the Russians, the Indians could buy their stuff if they wanted to (God knows they have plenty of times in the past), but as they say "buyer beware".  The Russian stuff is certainly cheaper and easier to maintain, but the only thing the Russian stuff does better than our stuff is blow up in combat.  Just ask the Egyptians, Syrians, and Iraqis, among others. 

When you climb down from your ego trip and think clearly, you will realise that India is a reliable and low risk trade partner. I mean it is not like you sell some sensitive stuff to Pakistan which they quietly pass on to their new best friend China and US ends up wondering what hit it. That however is not the point, what this thread is all about is that despite having been denied the technology, India has managed to finally come up with a pretty decent third generation ATGM. It may have taken us 20 years, a lot of money and it may not be as good as the latest Hellfire, but that we can live with. The American could have earned a lot of good will from India apart from money AND could have saved us a lot of trouble.
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       7/13/2009 4:38:47 PM
One note - Cray Computer has not closed its doors. I think the article was talking about SGI (which also has not closed its doors, though it did go bankrupt and was bought up by Rackable Systems). SGI used to own Cray, but sold them off in 2000.  Also, I would say SGI's problems had a lot more to do with its poor product roadmaps (at one point they offered 3 OSes on 3 different processor architectures, with no clear differentiator), poor buisiness decisions (buying Cray & Alias), and being taken by suprise by technology changes (e.g. cheap commodity graphics acceleration cards)
 

America is the loser

Image: CMT Inc.It was the stringent export regulation that spelled doom for the American supercomputer outfit Cray. The company was prevented from exporting its high end super computing machines on the ground that it could be diverted for military use, and had not option but to shut shop. This is just one example of what ITAR had done to the American high tech industry.



 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy