Prahaar awaits Army intent; DRDO luring IAF, Navy

[Tshering22]

I think it is you who needs to curb your runaway mouth a little.

Guess you need to open your eyes and see the kind of neighborhood we're surrounded with before asking others to stop worrying. Perhaps sitting tight in centre of the country with the sold out media eye-washing you sounds fine, but things are tad bit different in bordering states... and I am not talking about Bangladeshi border.

Why should the Army lap up every thing the DRDO offers?

Let me ask you something--- why should the Army NOT induct something that is as unique as the Prahaar? It serves both as a tactical and ballistic missile being a new niche product offering unique versatility. If this same missile was developed by Israel, Russia or USA, you would be singing hymns of it and the Army would be running head over heels to acquire 10,000 of it because the top generals get to fill their pockets only later to be revealed that half the technology is shoddy and we have been duped.

Don't tell me this hasn't happened in the past.

Just do read up on what Prahaar is before asking this question. I speak this with the perspective of stationing these missiles in mountainous terrain such as my state where the Central government has not even given jack in terms of defense readiness, leaving infantrymen and soldiers to do everything with their nails and toes.

Compare this to PLA deployment and Tibet and then talk funny.

Is the Prahar the outcome of a requirement that was projected by the Army? Or is it a brainwave that the DRDO had and is now busy trying to convince the Army that it needs it.

DRDO's job is to come up with state of the arts weapons. it has failed to do so earlier but whenever it has come up with good equipment, the Army decided to buy foreign trash offering inferior quality and high price for the same damn thing after decades of delay. Prove me wrong here.

You know this bitter truth and I know it as well. What are you trying to prove then?

A need is felt for a particular weapon system to fulfill a particular role. The weapon system is developed accordingly.

This is not the 60s socialist era where everything is to be done and planned for decades and by the time something comes out it become obsolete. This Indian mentality of 60s has to stop and start taking proactive steps. Only then we can afford to match against someone as the PLA. While PLA might have its own set of inflated depictions, we must know that they are proactive in their plans while we like socialist fools of 60s focusing on Pakistan, are still ill-prepared to take on the Dragon.

Maybe to you it is easy to see why the Army is opposed but I am certainly not comfortable sending my country's soldiers' to their deaths just by sitting warm on a laptop.

Army's poor planning, short-sightedness and corrupt top level attitude is clearly visible when compared to the doctrine of Indian Navy that is miles ahead in terms of self-reliance, strategic planning and timely induction of cost-effective, indigenous and cutting-edge technologies.

Are you aware of the sequence of events which led to the trial of Prahar? It was made out to be a response to Pakistan's Nasr. They made the Nasr to meet a certain requirement, a short range battlefield nuclear tipped deterrent to imaginary Indian invasion under the so called Cold Start strategy. Do we have such requirements?

I am very well aware of Prahaar's purpose. But you are contradicting your statements in the first paragraph that mention Prahaar's role as doubtful and something imposed on the Army. Make up your mind will you?

As I thought...Pakistan again. See this is the problem when short sighted people come to power. Not just Sikkim, but practically the entire Northeast, from the late Dorjee Khandu to Ladakh's Commissioner have been pressing the MOD to deploy tactical weapon systems rapidly in the eastern sector that would deter the Chinese but they and the likes of you are obsessed with a state that is on the verge of collapse and is of no military threat.

Why do we need an altogether new system which will entail a totally different type of training, organisation and battlefield tactics, and further expenses?The IA already has the Prithvi which can engage targets at reduced ranges of 150 KMs.

Tactical missile... Please research a bit on how differently and diversely it can be applied on battlefield applications. Prithvi's purpose is tad bit different from this.

Why not make the Prithvi more versatile and dependable by giving it a solid motor, maybe cannisterise it to make it a short reaction ballistic missile. Prithvi is certainly far more accurate than the Prahar.

I am interested to know about this, a little light here would be great.

There are many factors to be considered. Expecting the IA to start drooling over the Prahar just because the internet warriors here are doing the same is hilarious. The IA will accept the Prahar if it feels that it needs it and that too only after all home work regarding organisation/setup of Prahar units, the tactics involved, training, storage, deployment, budgeting etc are worked out in detail and not before.

Yeah right... looking at the field gun "need" that IA is showing, the induction rate and pathetic negotiations with Russia it is doing AND the totally clueless image it is posting towards placement of strategic weapons in our northeastern sector, I am sooo 'confident' of the IA's acquisition decisiveness, being myself living just 250 Km away from the nearest Chinese military frontline...just great .

Last time also the Center and MOD gave such bullshit 'logics' of fancy words and vocabulary gimmicks while IA common soldiers and we Sikkimese nearly had had it, 48 years back.

 

[wild_fire1979]

If you do not know the things, do not reply otherwise it looks ridiculous. Prithvi is a liquid fuel missile while Prahaar is not only solid fueled by smaller and derived from AAD. Two different systems. What is wrong with quick reaction prithvi? what it has to do with Prahaar?

What has a missile being liquid or solid fueled have **anything** to do with reliability? I am stating that the quality is sub-standard and not reliable. When we cannot trust a quick reaction AMM to launch when needed to intercept an incoming missile, how can my faith be established in Prahaar. Simply giving fancy names don't help unless they are made reliable.

 

[Kinetic]

What has a missile being liquid or solid fueled have **anything** to do with reliability?

Solid fuel missiles need much less maintenance and more reliable.

I am stating that the quality is sub-standard and not reliable. When we cannot trust a quick reaction AMM to launch when needed to intercept an incoming missile, how can my faith be established in Prahaar.

What the hell is this? What sub-standard and What 'AMM' to intercept incoming missiles are you talking about?

Simply giving fancy names don't help unless they are made reliable.

Than give it a bold name for you and watch it destroy the enemy. lol

 

[Tshering22]

What has a missile being liquid or solid fueled have **anything** to do with reliability?

Easier maintenance, more time on active operation and better efficiency in fuel burn utilization to be said in layman's terms. Please google it out yourself for in-depth information. It is available in public domain.

I am stating that the quality is sub-standard and not reliable.

And what part of the article or anything else for that matter states that Prahaar is "sub-standard"? Let me guess; it is indigenously developed? Typical. Prahaar is a tactical missile capable of flushing out specific strategic assets and snuffing them out. In fact, it is a sub-niche of what Shaurya was made to be; a new category of short range quasi-ballistic missile.

Everytime Army top brass gives bullcrap reasons to refuse fine quality indigenous products and ends up bagging millions in under-table commissions while thrusting foreign trash into the hands of infantry, artillery and armored divisions.

The same nonsense was given by the IA's corrupt generals when they said about Arjun; only when DRDO challenged it, they had to bite the dust, be red faced and give crap excuses later defending the Arjun when it trashed T-90s. Face it; 99% of our top brass in IA are corrupt and now addicted to fat pay cheques in the form of commissions from firangi defense suppliers.

When we cannot trust a quick reaction AMM to launch when needed to intercept an incoming missile, how can my faith be established in Prahaar..

I don't think you got it; Prahaar is not Pradyumna BMD. Know the difference between the two before debating, will you?

Simply giving fancy names don't help unless they are made reliable

Would "Destroyer" make it lethal enough for you rather than the "shameful" Sanskrit word? Some Indians are funny when they show how ashamed they are of our ancient venerable language.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Face it; 99% of our top brass in IA are corrupt and now addicted to fat pay cheques in the form of commissions from firangi defense suppliers.

Not a fair statement, IMO.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I think it is you who needs to curb your runaway mouth a little.
Why should the Army lap up every thing the DRDO offers? Is the Prahar the outcome of a requirement that was projected by the Army? Or is it a brainwave that the DRDO had and is now busy trying to convince the Army that it needs it. A need is felt for a particular weapon system to fulfill a particular role. The weapon system is developed accordingly. One does not make a weapon and then go to the users saying 'hey I think you should buy this'. Are you aware of the sequence of events which led to the trial of Prahar? It was made out to be a response to Pakistan's Nasr. They made the Nasr to meet a certain requirement, a short range battlefield nuclear tipped deterrent to imaginary Indian invasion under the so called Cold Start strategy. Do we have such requirements? Why do we need an altogether new system which will entail a totally different type of training, organisation and battlefield tactics, and further expenses? The IA already has the Prithvi which can engage targets at reduced ranges of 150 KMs. Why not make the Prithvi more versatile and dependable by giving it a solid motor, maybe cannisterise it to make it a short reaction ballistic missile. Prithvi is certainly far more accurate than the Prahar. There are many factors to be considered. Expecting the IA to start drooling over the Prahar just because the internet warriors here are doing the same is hilarious. The IA will accept the Prahar if it feels that it needs it and that too only after all home work regarding organisation/setup of Prahar units, the tactics involved, training, storage, deployment, budgeting etc are worked out in detail and not before.

Prithvi is liquid fuel ballistic; Prahaar is solid fuel hybrid, quick reaction. Prithvi is for much higher payloads (including nuclear payloads). Very different systems.

Unit costs are also very low for Prahaar.

Not correct to say Prithvi is much more accurate. Prahaar would have a similar guidance package as Brahmos land-attack version.

The best way to think of Prahaar is as a cheaper, lighter, faster, but lower-range version of Brahmos.

 

[Tshering22]

Not a fair statement, IMO.

At top this statement is more closer to truth than it seems outside. There are some sincere lot but very few of them trickle to the top. Example, Gen. Manekshaw who was the only one to control Indira; recently Gen. Singh got trapped for a petty issue about his age which the government is using against him after he publicly expressed dissatisfaction of government's "measures".

ACM Naik had the same problem in IAF; the UPA hated him for his far sightedness and adamantly rational views. Admiral Mehta again suffered UPA's wrath for the same.

OTOH see current ACM Browne and Gen. Kapoor; they had a smooth sailing because of being partners in UPA's crimes at levels we can never know for sure.

 

[Kinetic]

At top this statement is more closer to truth than it seems outside. There are some sincere lot but very few of them trickle to the top. Example, Gen. Manekshaw who was the only one to control Indira; recently Gen. Singh got trapped for a petty issue about his age which the government is using against him after he publicly expressed dissatisfaction of government's "measures".

ACM Naik had the same problem in IAF; the UPA hated him for his far sightedness and adamantly rational views. Admiral Mehta again suffered UPA's wrath for the same.

OTOH see current ACM Browne and Gen. Kapoor; they had a smooth sailing because of being partners in UPA's crimes at levels we can never know for sure.

You have a point, Gen VK Singh may not well suited for UPA's black deals thats why they want to remove him with a controversy. Unnecessary interruption by the MoD and bad for the image of an IA chief.