Rafael fires Spike missiles in Indian evaluation

[RPK]

Rafael fires Spike missiles in Indian evaluation

A test launch of three Rafael Spike ER multi-purpose air-to-surface missiles from an Israeli air force helicopter on 19 September completed the Indian air force's evaluation of the candidates hoping to equip some of its helicopters.

Performed at the Shedma test range in southern Israel, the firings were successful, according to a source.

With a maximum range of 8km (4.3nm), the electro-optically-guided Spike ER is available with a variety of warhead options designed to destroy tanks with special armour and other reinforced targets.

The relatively slow velocity of the weapon and its use of a fibreoptic data link allows "pinpoint" accuracy, even in adverse weather conditions and at night, Rafael said.

The Israeli company faces competition from European rival MBDA Deutschland, which is promoting its PARS 3 missile.

Armed with a tandem warhead, the "fire and forget" weapon is capable of engaging targets to a range of around 7km.

A German army Eurocopter Tiger was used to fire three of the missiles at the Vidsel test range in Sweden in April 2011, with each weapon striking its intended target.

The Indian army is seeking to arm some of its Hindustan Aeronautics Dhruv advanced light helicopters with the selected weapon.

It could potentially also be integrated with the Kamov Ka-52 or Mil Mi-28, if either of these are selected for the service's future attack helicopter requirement.

 

[jha]

Rafael fires Spike missiles in Indian evaluation

A test launch of three Rafael Spike ER multi-purpose air-to-surface missiles from an Israeli air force helicopter on 19 September completed the Indian air force's evaluation of the candidates hoping to equip some of its helicopters.

Performed at the Shedma test range in southern Israel, the firings were successful, according to a source.

With a maximum range of 8km (4.3nm), the electro-optically-guided Spike ER is available with a variety of warhead options designed to destroy tanks with special armour and other reinforced targets.

The relatively slow velocity of the weapon and its use of a fibreoptic data link allows "pinpoint" accuracy, even in adverse weather conditions and at night, Rafael said.

The Israeli company faces competition from European rival MBDA Deutschland, which is promoting its PARS 3 missile.

Armed with a tandem warhead, the "fire and forget" weapon is capable of engaging targets to a range of around 7km.

A German army Eurocopter Tiger was used to fire three of the missiles at the Vidsel test range in Sweden in April 2011, with each weapon striking its intended target.

The Indian army is seeking to arm some of its Hindustan Aeronautics Dhruv advanced light helicopters with the selected weapon.

It could potentially also be integrated with the Kamov Ka-52 or Mil Mi-28, if either of these are selected for the service's future attack helicopter requirement.

Another shoddy reporting..Its APACHE v/s Mi-28...

BTW Spike family of ATGMs is really good...I would prefer there over PARS 3..

 

[Abingdonboy]

Another shoddy reporting..Its APACHE v/s Mi-28...

BTW Spike family of ATGMs is really good...I would prefer there over PARS 3..

I was just thinking the same. But I believe Apache would come with its own, similar, system.

 

[sancho]

Another shoddy reporting..Its APACHE v/s Mi-28...

BTW Spike family of ATGMs is really good...I would prefer there over PARS 3..

It's actually interesting that it is mentioned with these helicopters, although I expected it for LCH and Rudra anyway. However, the importan point here is, that this is an IAF evaluation, which shows exactly what I said when the reports about IA evaluating PARS 3! Instead of a common weapon package, our forces again goes for different solutions, which not only makes logistics more complicated, but the whole integration and procurement of weapons way more costly for MoD. I don't know why MoD is not demanding things like this from all forces to reduce diffent types of equipment and costs.

Why does IA btw needs a dedicated ATGM for Rudra anyway? Couldn't they simply use LAHAT which they use for their tanks and that is on offer for Dhruv also?

Especially since PARS and SPIKE are only stop gap solutions, till HELINA is available, so why such complicated ways?

Same goes for so many things in our forces, different weapons, different SAM systems, or developments for the same purposes, different competitions for the same procurements. If they can't really work these things out, MoD should do it!

 

[guest11]

It's actually interesting that it is mentioned with these helicopters, although I expected it for LCH and Rudra anyway. However, the importan point here is, that this is an IAF evaluation, which shows exactly what I said when the reports about IA evaluating PARS 3! Instead of a common weapon package, our forces again goes for different solutions, which not only makes logistics more complicated, but the whole integration and procurement of weapons way more costly for MoD. I don't know why MoD is not demanding things like this from all forces to reduce diffent types of equipment and costs.

Why does IA btw needs a dedicated ATGM for Rudra anyway? Couldn't they simply use LAHAT which they use for their tanks and that is on offer for Dhruv also?

Especially since PARS and SPIKE are only stop gap solutions, till HELINA is available, so why such complicated ways?

Same goes for so many things in our forces, different weapons, different SAM systems, or developments for the same purposes, different competitions for the same procurements. If they can't really work these things out, MoD should do it!

The difference is of warhead. Pars or Spike carries twice the warhead weight than lahat. Helina is not likely to go into production. Take a look at the Nag orders, miniscule for a force as large as Indian armoured corps.

 

[angeldemon_007]

Another shoddy reporting..Its APACHE v/s Mi-28...

BTW Spike family of ATGMs is really good...I would prefer there over PARS 3..

I was just thinking the same. But I believe Apache would come with its own, similar, system.

Its not meant for Apache. IAF is not decommissioning Mi35, not to mention their will be armed Mi17, LUH and might be even armed dhruv using it.

In my opinion this is just a test. I hope IAF don't act like the idioitc MOD and and give green signal to Spike. If it does it would be an example of mismanagement and inefficiency. IA has chosen PARS-3 and it will be only wise if we expand that order to include weapons for IAF will also. It will be cheaper.

 

[MrIndianSikh]

why? what about the air launched Nag missile?

 

[guest11]

Its not meant for Apache. IAF is not decommissioning Mi35, not to mention their will be armed Mi17, LUH and might be even armed dhruv using it.

In my opinion this is just a test. I hope IAF don't act like the idioitc MOD and and give green signal to Spike. If it does it would be an example of mismanagement and inefficiency. IA has chosen PARS-3 and it will be only wise if we expand that order to include weapons for IAF will also. It will be cheaper.

AFAIK, armed Mi 17 or LUH is not supposed to carry ATGMs. In case of Mi 17, I haven't seen one but I could be wrong and for LUH, with it's relatively smaller payload, a 45-50 kg ATGM is not likely to be integrated. In case of war, these ATGMs are to be fired at Pakistani armoured columns which is no Red Army with 80,000 tanks, so Apache/mi 28, LCH and Rudra combination will do. No need for LUH or Mi 17s in anti armour role.

These Pars 3 LR are for Army's LCH and Rudra.

 

[sancho]

The difference is of warhead. Pars or Spike carries twice the warhead weight than lahat. Helina is not likely to go into production. Take a look at the Nag orders, miniscule for a force as large as Indian armoured corps.

I know the difference between the 2 missiles, what I asked was, why Rudra needs a dedicated ATGM, when it could use LAHAT that IA uses too, for Rudra as well. The aim of Rudra is not tank hunting, it is transport and fire support to the ground troops, therefore the lighter LAHAT is more than useful and could be carried in higher numbers as well.
Also why the forces can't look on commonality, instead each force with their own weapon package.

. IA has chosen PARS-3 and it will be only wise if we expand that order to include weapons for IAF will also. It will be cheaper.

Actually the reports said that IA is evaluating the missile, not that they choose it and the question is which missile is better and cheaper. PARS has no other operator than the German forces and their Tiger helicopter and afaik that capability is hardly operational yet. Spanish Tigers uses SPIKE, while the Australian and French uses Hellfire.

 

[guest11]

I know the difference between the 2 missiles, what I asked was, why Rudra needs a dedicated ATGM, when it could use LAHAT that IA uses too, for Rudra as well. The aim of Rudra is not tank hunting, it is transport and fire support to the ground troops, therefore the lighter LAHAT is more than useful and could be carried in higher numbers as well.
Also why the forces can't look on commonality, instead each force with their own weapon package.

Lahat is not in use with the IA, at least not until Arjun mk2 gets operational clearance. LCH is still a couple of years away and even if the induction starts in 2014, it will take around a decade for its completion. Rudra is somewhere between a stop gap and an offensive capability for air assault troops. This is the reason why IAF is not interested in Rudra but waiting for Apache/Mil 28 and LCH. Lahat is a very good missile but why lahat when the chopper can carry equal number of advanced missiles.

 

[Laughing_soldier]

javelin or spike?

 

[sancho]

Lahat is not in use with the IA, at least not until Arjun mk2 gets operational clearance...Rudra is somewhere between a stop gap and an offensive capability for air assault troops...Lahat is a very good missile but why lahat when the chopper can carry equal number of advanced missiles.

But will be for sure, so using that missile in higher number for ground forces as well the helicopters that supports them, reduces the procurement and logistical costs.
Wrong, as I explained earlier, Rudra is meant to transport troops and provide fire support to them, even without the need of dedicated attack helicopters for escorts. IA will be way more independent from IAF, for fire support with them and that's why they want them. LCH instead will take way more offensive roles, in tank hunting, attacking forwarded radar, or command of the enemy, without ground troops at all. So both are needed for IA but with different roles in mind and that's why Rudra will not necessarily need all the weapons that LCH might need, since the main aim is fire support and that's why it needs the gun and the rocket pods!
Btw, who said that Rudra would be able to carry the same number of missiles? Take a look at the different stub wings and you will see, that they can't carry the same external loads. From the HAL Dhruv brochure itself:

As you can see, on each of the 4 hardpoints, it can carry a 2 x ATGMs, while LCH should be able to carry 4 on the inner hardpoint and at least 2 on the outer. The pic of Rudra with LAHAT on the other side, showed 4 x missiles on each hard point, which means, if needed, a single Rudra could carry 16 x LAHAT missiles to provide fire support against armoured columns for example.

 

[guest11]

But will be for sure, so using that missile in higher number for ground forces as well the helicopters that supports them, reduces the procurement and logistical costs.

124 is the number of Arjun mk2 ordered so far. 114 LCH and ~40 Rudra are supposed to carry ATGMs. Do you really think that they are going for the commonality between 124 tanks and 150 + choppers? And one more thing, Lahat is subsonic(wiki) whereas Pars has a speed of ~ 1.5 mach and much higher penetration level.

Wrong, as I explained earlier, Rudra is meant to transport troops and provide fire support to them, even without the need of dedicated attack helicopters for escorts. IA will be way more independent from IAF, for fire support with them and that's why they want them. LCH instead will take way more offensive roles, in tank hunting, attacking forwarded radar, or command of the enemy, without ground troops at all. So both are needed for IA but with different roles in mind and that's why Rudra will not necessarily need all the weapons that LCH might need, since the main aim is fire support and that's why it needs the gun and the rocket pods!

Rudra if successful, will build or most likely reorganize 54th air assault divison of IA, a capability they were lacking because of resource constraint. MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator (DAP) is an example of air assault helicopter or an armed helicopter. Don't get mixed up between armed and attack helicopters. Dropping troops in a hot zone providing fire support while doing so and having a limited anti armour or air defence capability is how you can define an armed or air assault chopper.

Btw, who said that Rudra would be able to carry the same number of missiles? Take a look at the different stub wings and you will see, that they can't carry the same external loads. From the HAL Dhruv brochure itself:

As you can see, on each of the 4 hardpoints, it can carry a 2 x ATGMs, while LCH should be able to carry 4 on the inner hardpoint and at least 2 on the outer. The pic of Rudra with LAHAT on the other side, showed 4 x missiles on each hard point, which means, if needed, a single Rudra could carry 16 x LAHAT missiles to provide fire support against armoured columns for example.

Rudra has its own role as I mentioned above. Just like MH 60 DAP and Cobra fulfill two different roles. A Rudra with 4 ATGMs or AAMs and two rocket pods are enough for both troop insertion and fire support.

 

[angeldemon_007]

AFAIK, armed Mi 17 or LUH is not supposed to carry ATGMs. In case of Mi 17, I haven't seen one but I could be wrong and for LUH, with it's relatively smaller payload, a 45-50 kg ATGM is not likely to be integrated. In case of war, these ATGMs are to be fired at Pakistani armoured columns which is no Red Army with 80,000 tanks, so Apache/mi 28, LCH and Rudra combination will do. No need for LUH or Mi 17s in anti armour role.

Mi17 won't be armed with anti tank weapons but its not impossible. Israeli have armed their black hawk and so does some of the US black hawks are also armed.

IA is receiving armed dhruv, IAF is free to place order for this version of Dhruv which will carry atleast 4 anti-tank missiles.

for LUH, with it's relatively smaller payload, a 45-50 kg ATGM is not likely to be integrated.

As far as LUH is concerned here take a look at this picture of eurocopter fennec which is most likely to win LUH tender :

fennec with 4 anti-tank missiles

Actually the reports said that IA is evaluating the missile, not that they choose it and the question is which missile is better and cheaper.

Which are the other contenders and which is the best one ?

PARS has no other operator than the German forces and their Tiger helicopter and afaik that capability is hardly operational yet. Spanish Tigers uses SPIKE, while the Australian and French uses Hellfire.

When i heard about this missile, i also didn't get why ? I thought it might be the best missile.

These Pars 3 LR are for Army's LCH and Rudra.

LCH is 2-3 years away. And armed dhruv is Rudra. Also IA has already decided to use LUH for giving support to armored regiment and some of them will be armed. The armed version of LUH can go high if MOD does not allow IA to acquire LCH. Right now IA has just shown their requirement but no official comment has been made unlike IAF. IAF is not letting IA to increase their aviation wing and MOD is not interested in hard work so they are staying out of this dispute as it is potentially flamable.

 

[guest11]

Mi17 won't be armed with anti tank weapons but its not impossible. Israeli have armed their black hawk and so does some of the US black hawks are also armed.

I have already mentioned the MH60 DAP.

IA is receiving armed dhruv, IAF is free to place order for this version of Dhruv which will carry atleast 4 anti-tank missiles.

Yes they are but still they haven't.

As far as LUH is concerned here take a look at this picture of eurocopter fennec which is most likely to win LUH tender

LUH is there to replace Chetak and Cheetah. In case a war breaks out, they are supposed to deliver troops and equipment to the high altitude. IA and IAF will have plenty of anti armour choppers, they hardly need a light one for that role.

LCH is 2-3 years away. And armed dhruv is Rudra. Also IA has already decided to use LUH for giving support to armored regiment and some of them will be armed. The armed version of LUH can go high if MOD does not allow IA to acquire LCH. Right now IA has just shown their requirement but no official comment has been made unlike IAF. IAF is not letting IA to increase their aviation wing and MOD is not interested in hard work so they are staying out of this dispute as it is potentially flamable.

Mate, after spending a couple of years on different forums I think I am supposed to know what Rudra is.