Bharat Rakshak

I thought SAR does not create "real time" "images" and also they are only 2D.
May be somebody can clarify.

A new method for SAR/ISAR imaging of moving aircraft or ship
Li Shiguo; Ni Jinling; Shan Rongguang; Chu Xiaobing;
Nanjing Res. Inst. of Electron. Technol.

medvedev has activated a new missile warning radar Voronezh-M in kaliningrad on the baltic sea. photos here {10m x 30m antenna}
http://www.interpress.ru/index.php?page ... p_id=20664

and older larger Dnepr-M
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program ... _house.htm

if we are serious about missile warning and deterrance need such things too....

Electronically Scanned Metric Radar for EW system , its a new modular type system you can add grids or remove it and is considered environmentally friendly ( uses low power ) , the range of this system is 6000 km and practically covers entire Europe.

It would be good if we start working on such long range metric radars for EW and detection of LO targets at long ranges. We need some OTH to cover china and monitor its missile development , The LRTR is practically good to cover the Pakistan front.

what about plasma shield effects at hypersonic speeds? do these not prevent any RF transceiving?

Plasma is formed above Mach 8 , Brahmos-2 will be travelling between Mach 5 and 7 so it wont face that issue

There are really some important messages out there in this article.

well.... the mach 7 a2s brahmos SAR radar would be very difficult to house in a missile, right? perhaps need external guidance from an awac or mki kind of platform for that. terminal homing can be achieved with electro-optical (and/or IR) sensor fusion, since it is a ground target. even it is on sea surface, at mach 7 electro-optics is good enough, with all these RLGs and INS, these technologies can make it a killer missile system.

now, I am thinking say the missile is coated with RAM, then with best radar technologies it should be only detectable at say 120-150km (which is about 1 minute or less to destruction).. then scrambling logic and launch system would take another 15-20 seconds at the best case... then there is no chance of interception in another 15-30 seconds.

but, we are speaking so delta times here, and I don't think anyone has such installed technologies.

Well Brahmos 1 to has a good RAM coating for sure, what should make the difference with Brahmos 2 is to have a radar friendly design with edges that send radar waves away from the source. Combine that with RAM coating and incredible speeds, the Brahmos 2 could be invisible for quite some time.

What the Week article is clarifying is that;

The RLG which is strapdown guidance system is capable of achieving very high accuracy
- Most likely the MINGS agugments and aids in achieving this accuarcy
- This is a very significant acheivement as gimballed systems like those used for ISRO sat launches are expensive.
- Would like to see this setup proofed on a PSLV launch to get parameters and signal capability
The adjectives like sleek etc show that weight reduction for the crucial motors has been achieved.
- Most likely graphite epoxy filament wound motors are on the anvil
- AIV had only the second stage motor in that configuration
-AV should be all up composite motors

The comment about avionics/auxilaries means new electronic architecture has been developed based on computer implementation. There were reports of a 32 bit computer chip (Kalpana?) developed for their own use.

- Package functions have been implemented in software eliminating the need for physical packages. This would result in reducing cabling etc which are more opportunities for failure: cut, snag, burn, just plain fall out
The other note the manpower requirement for launch crew to only two
- This is a major improvement and allows the existing regiments to have more vehicles

The new cadre is getting more confident and getting experience in executing complex technology programs

The last part about cyber warfare issues deals with next frontier of PRC threats

Once AV is qualified and inducted maybe the BARC can be split and brought under the 'can do' DRDO setup.

Mrs Thomas needs a more high profile job after this.

They should consider z-category for the team now.. till A5 is delivered to IA., not just chippanda.. but there may be many firangs who must be envious of the team.

I have two serious questions about the road/rail mobile versions of Agni-5 and the mention of "canisterisation".If our stance is "no-first-use",how will we be able to mate the warheads with the missiles if the missiles are going to be moved at will anywhere in the country? In the case of air launched weapons,the stand-off missile and warhead can be mated just before take-off.In the road/rail missiles, There will have to be a network of secret bases where the warheads will have to be stored separately,to prevent an accidental launch if the missiles and warheads are already mated during heightened tensions in any crisis.If canisterisation takes place,then the warhead and missile will be ready for launch requiring only the launch codes to be fed in for targeting.Does this then bring us closer to abandoning the NFU stance vis-a-vis China?

The second Q is given our opacity of our N-warhead capabilities,TN or no TN capability,and the variety of N-warheads that we supposedly possess and require,will there be a standardisation of N-warheads/MIRVs for Agni-5,A-4,A-3,etc.? Assuming that different targets in China will require warheads of varying capability,for example to destroy deeply buried targets say at Sanya,and the range/missile type (say A-4 or 5) required being the same for varying strengths of warheads,how would this be practical given canisterisation? Would we then require a certain minimum number of missiles pre-loaded with A and B warheads before canisterisation? The missiles for both first and second strike of our strategic deterrence to give credibility, would require both civilian and military targets and diff, warhead strengths for the same.How this is going to be shared by our "triad" is the moot Q.Both mobile land and sea based missiles have an in-built inflexibility about them (land based less) with respect to warheads,while the air-launched leg of the triad,the most flexible in choice of N-warhead,limited only by size of missile/bomb carrying capacity of the aircraft, will be the weakest leg (after our ATVs have been commissioned),since we have no dedicated long range strategic bomber force which could deliver a variety of N-tipped missiles or bombs in service or as of now not being planned for.

This brings us back to the size of the strategic N-arsenal required and the size of the tacatical N-arsenal also required, espcially in the light of the new Paki doctrine to use tactical N-weapons early on in a spat with India if they suffer major reversals on the ground and the multiplicity of targets of the PRC given our new "look east" outlook and operations in the Indo-China Sea focussed upon Sanya and other targets.

Philip, Cannisterization whether on land or sea (launch tube) means demated is out. So first question is answered. Also see the comments about launch crew of only two people.

The second question is depends. Lets see what AV does. If its a single unitary payload like AIII, then its one thing. If its multiple then its another thing.

Most likely we will see a single payload and eventually later version.

so NFU is out then? again that is the confusion I get after reading Philip's post. is there a relationship here?

^ NFU still exists even when demated is out with canisterization. Unless we think a nuke is launched by rogue elements.

rogue launch prevention should be inbuilt. the nuke command should classify that. I agree.

right.. no-fuss about it... means our next plan would be heavy investments into space, land and sea based launch detection systems.

Where is NFU being questioned? Its still there. Only the "force in being" stuff of Tellis is goli maro. Those two officers* will launch only after getting orders from the NCA. So all iz well.

*remember who they work for.

I used to say narayana narayna! now I chant shiva shiva!

Mating the warhead with missiles doesnt mean we have abandoned the no-first use policy. In fact it will only quicken our response time..

Tx Ramanna,and Krish.Yes,canisterisation means "mated" and it takes us onto another level.Response time definitely quicker I agree. The two man crew indicates a very highly developed real time C3I system,given the ability of the launchers to be dispersed around the country.

Regarding standardization of N warhead,

If one look at various published doc and views in public back the from the days of Sundarji on N doctrine, it is obvious that we are planning for 150-200 kt as standardized warhead.

Latest such statement was from Avinash Chander.



The supposed yield of FBF weapon that was planned to be tested during IG days in 80s was considered to be around ~ 150 kt.

During Cold War 150 kt is the line which differentiates between tactical and strategic warhead.

There could be other standardized warheads which we may know probably in future, but this is the one which was much talked about.

I would go based on the known throw weight of the various Agnis. ranges from 800 kg (AIV) to 1.5tonnes (AIII).

leaving aside containerization of A5 and rail mobile A3, even Arihant automatically means mated warheads for k-15 and k-4.

its a point of no return. one cannot expect to have 2nd strike "launch on impact" deterrence effective without mated warheads.

launch on detection (confirmed signature) is what I want.. launch on impact is no use deterrence. unless, I am reading you wrong.

Sir, russia has at present 4 operational cosmos sats that monitor the mainland US 24x7 for launch signature. it has no means to realtime monitor hawaii or any other ocean for SLBM launches. these move in highly elliptic orbits probably to spend maximum 'look time' over usa.

hence they have these huge Dnepr, Daryal and Voronezh radars on the ground to monitor all activity out to 5000km and monitor space objects like sats and inbound icbms.

now china is as big as usa and will soon have JL2 working from Jin ssbn's.

so you can see we need atleast 4-6 heavy sats in HEO and atleast 4 such mega radars (with ideally 1 backup at each site) if you are going for early warning and giving our retaliatory units the vital 15 mins of extra lead time to get ready and disperse to firing positions....scramble the PM and chain of command to secure sites if possible....transmit orders to any ssbns we will get.

it may be hard to confirm the heat signature early but radar could be cued to its trajectory for confirmation maybe...we dont want to launch just because a big fireworks show is on in guangzhou !

Singha ji, agreed. You have simply put some pretty coherent thoughts. I am also thinking normally such launches will not happen by accidents (I am not including noko), but usually after some high level sabre rattle by higher commands on the other side (may be not). Perhaps, these events could aid to trigger the focus area to find the signature where it is more likely to happen.

multiple 5k wala radars, dedicated satellites, sub-surface launch detection (?), land/mountain based installations, and other early warning investments are mandatory for our NFU. Besides, the ABM launch sequence should be issued along the second strikes. It is going to be pretty complex sensing affair.

As per an old presentation by NAL&IISc, the hypersonic wind tunnel was to be set up by VSSC in 2009. i guess it is operational now.

Also DRDL was setting up a hypersonic shock tunnel.

has operated one since 2008 actually.

And VSSC has operated a hypersonic wind tunnel since 1980. ( and a hypersonic shock tunnel as well).

Thats not true , the yeald of the weapon did not matter but the carrier platform did .....so you could have a ICBM with 100 kt yeald warhead and it could reach Washington or Moscow from its own launch base it was considered Strategic Nuke .... many Russian long range antiship ( 600 km ) missile have a weapon yeald of 750 kt but considered tactical or sub-strategic weapon

True. START treaty negotiations actually had this dilemma before making out as strategic and tactical. But that is not the only way to dice the category into tactical and strategic.

B61 variable yield bomb, upto 170 kt yield is declared as tactical.

Elementary question here. Doesnt the proposed Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) of Indian Railways make it easier for the adversaries by reducing the number of likely locations where the rail launch unit rakes could be located, whether the missile is A2, A3 or A5?

Or will the strategic forces still continue to have a few select non-electrified spots sharing lines with passenger traffic in order to maintain the ambiguity?

oops I had not considered the factor that electric lines cannot be used to launch rail mobile anything. assuming they use diesel locos to be off the grid, they would need to build suitable non electrified sidings at many places to use any part of our electrified railway lines.

perhaps thats why the move of A5 to road mobile.

As I mentioned mid of this year that Nag might not be inducted:

DRDO failure forces buying of costly missiles

ChackoJ, That report mixes apples and oranges.

True Nag is still in development as new and newer requirements get slapped on it. And wonder what reqmt the Spike couldnt meet!

The Javelin is a man portable missile. NAG is a vehicle mounted missile. How can the Javelin be an alternate to the Nag? Might as well settle for knife!

Besides wasn't the Konkurs M considered to be not State of the Art (SOTA) and hence the quest for NAG?


Also if ground based NAG is a non performer how will the helicopter version fare?

The reporter wrote what was fed to them.

DRDO should partner with a private mfg who can take care of non technical reqmts.

ramana,

fed or not fed. The fact is that Nag project is in trouble. You might argue the demerits of the reporter and article. Helicopter version is an IAF project.

Wasn't it the IA who decided they wanted to make some substantial changes to the NAMICA (i.e. higher elevating sensors) and which delayed the actual induction by couple of more years. The NAG missile itself has been validated during user trials AFAIK.

I said it after the news came of NAMICA changes. After that I pointed out DRDO creating a roadmap “Defence technology Vision 2050″: Dr VK Saraswat

Read the second last para.

afair IA sat on the namica issue all through its years of testing and after it cleared all the missile trials, came forth with modifications to be made to the namica itself!

why it took them so long to redefine their req from the namica stands as a mystery...because javelin is not a dog in the fight. the only reason could be someone somewhere DGMF? wants the konkurs-M and kornet rather than Nag.