Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2015 03:34

VibhavS wrote:So time for a newbie to be a newbie and ask a question - Canisterizing would mean we are close to a production standard for the missile?

I think so. No point in proofing an experimental version out of the canister.

First are concept/engineering/technology demonstration flights
Next are pre-production demonstration flights
Next are production flights
Next next are user trials

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 May 2015 04:24

VibhavS wrote:So time for a newbie to be a newbie and ask a question - Canisterizing would mean we are close to a production standard for the missile?

No canisterizing means we are close to operational standard for the missile.

Canisterizing is an important step., in fact with canisterization - one cannot know if the ABM missile is a wooden round or not? And that does throw off the attacker's calculation. Imagine if there are 45 canistered missiles around Leh and 65 around Delhi. Will China take a chance in first strike? Will it have higher success over Leh vs. Delhi? This is just an example.

Canisterizing also brings in mobility and as threat perception changes the ABM missile can be moved around. Add it to a ship and the equation changes completely.

Now think of Mumbai being targetted., one can have multiple ships in the Arabian sea - in line with the trajectory and orthogonal to the trajectory of a Baki missile ready to shoot it down.

The cost of the attacker has increased tremendously. Even a 50% sure success rate of an ABM missile will increase the cost of the attacker by 100% (my rough calc. onlee). A factor of 6 success out of 7 is almost a 90% success., but imagine - what that success does to an attacker (costs increase by 10x times - by my own #pappu calculations)!

So what is a production standard? In a missile if the same system has been proofed say 3 times., then that design/assembly can be frozen and the missile can enter "serial" production. The user trials are over pre-production/production missiles and the process issues worked out. Once in a while the user will take out a missile from inventory and proof it to ensure that batch of missiles perform as indicated when the balloon goes up.

However the pace of missile design and technology is fast, so a reverse problem is when to "enter production"? IMHO this is a good problem to have.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 05 May 2015 05:45

<Tinfoil Hat On>
Pointless speculation...I wonder what the relationship is between Gopalaswamy and Matheshwaran, given the remarkable synchronization between their thoughts, almost like they're part of the same chorus line.
<Tinfoil Hat Off>

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 06:19

VibhavS wrote: Seriously after throwing that much of Money at it I think the Americans should be able to intercept the next Armageddon Asteroid Headed our way. ICBMs are piddling stuff.

This money argument is unconvincing for the same reason that Mangalyaan worked for less money than that wotzitsname Hollywood space movie. If we compare the American angle with the Indian angle every time then India is always fail-fail - especially when the great America itself has failed after spending money that India cannot afford. "America - with all its money cannot do it so is is laughable that Indians should be trying" is an argument that is impossible to refute but all it does is say that America is great and Indians should not bother trying what the US cannot do. "Look at America first before thinking, talking or acting" is an argument that never fails to attract my attention on BRF. This is an attitude that weighs Indians down in surprising places - even in the armed forces and certainly in the media - apart from BRF.

Rhetorical question: Is it any easier to hit Mars than it is to hit an incoming ballistic missile?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 06:35

VibhavS wrote: I believe they are testing lasers against ballistic targets as well.
<snip>
Today the Americans, followed by the Israelis are the world leaders in the tech because they spent time, money and effort. It is just galling that Indian's who learn their trade in India go abroad and start writing lifafa articles about focusing on poverty and forget BMD.

Lasers suffer from a huge problem
1. They lose energy due to dust and smoke in the atmosphere
2. The laser source requires humongous amounts of energy because, ultimately the laser has to burn a hole in the missile hundreds of km away and burning holes requires focus on a single spot for a long enough period of time - usually several seconds. A warhead shielded for re entry heat will not worry too much about laser heat so the missile has to be damaged earlier that that and this entails a whole different set of supporting systems of satellites and airborne lasers - with the need for an aircraft to generate the power needed by the laser

Technologically it is a challenging problem. The money argument is once again not directly related to ABM but to choices made about technologies that are going to be tried. One can spend a lot on difficult tech that may or may not end up working so success may not be related to the amount of money spent,

Indian lifafa is usually mental slavery secondary to western lifafa where they ask "Why are you spending money on weapons when you have starving people". This is a discussion that should go on the strat forum where we could ask similar questions about the US.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 May 2015 07:34

There are no laser programs to my knowledge that are trying to shoot down BM's. Lasers are being designed around areas where you need to reverse the cost curve such as taking out UAV's, small aircraft's and progressively larger aircraft. ABM Mission is still going to be dealt with missiles and Missiles + EMRG in the future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 07:44

brar_w wrote:There are no laser programs to my knowledge that are trying to shoot down BM's.

But lay media from the US - which fill airwaves and our mindspace frequently carry speculative articles about this - which is why people go about saying that they believe they have heard that the US is doing x or y or z.

In part some of those articles are probably lifafa from researchers who are trying to get funding for something or other. The Pentagon has deep pockets and a university prof has only one life to live. Better to live it well.

Having said that there are videos of ships knocking out small boats with laser. Obviously that is short range and "line of sight". Short range and line of sight are something that can use bullets as well. I am not arguing against research - but I must point out here that as a boy in the 1960s I read about lasers to destroy enemy targets. Billions have been spent - but not useless expenditure. That same laser is being used (apart from DVDs and communication) in surgical equipment to save eyes for example.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2015 09:16

after the B747 mounted YAL laser pgm was cancelled, there is no long range laser program

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 May 2015 09:26

The best time to hit BM is during its boost phase where its relatively slow and vulnerable , The problem with B747 YAL program was it has to be close to the target to hit it which means being at the right place and right time , BMD is very time sensitive a few seconds delay means the launch window is gone for ever.

Probably the Laser program still exisit in some classified domain and will emerge when it matures

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 May 2015 13:18

✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake 2h2 hours ago

Indian Army inducts first Akash regiment being developed by BDL based on DRDO technology.

Sitanshu Kar ‏@SpokespersonMoD 2h2 hours ago New Delhi, Delhi

#Akash Made in India Surface-2-Air Missile, Akash, handed over to the #IndianArmy.

Vishal Thapar ‏@thaparvishal 31m31 minutes ago

Army ordered 2 regiments of Akash SRSAM in 2011 for Rs 19000 cr. 6 troops, 24 launchers a regiment. Delivery in 3 yrs

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 May 2015 13:36

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 5m5 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

BTW the last AAD BMD test was indeed in a canisterized configuration.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 13:40

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-gets-a ... 833-3.html

"If you fire two missiles in a ripple it produces a single shot k - capability of 98%, we have a 3D central acquisition radar which looks far beyond upto 120 kms. As the target comes near, we have the state of the art face tracking radar that tracks the target, and the systems which control the missile precisely. Our regiment has 6 fire units, each fire unit has 4 Akaash launchers, each with three ready to fire missiles, so a lot of fire power goes along with each fire unit," Director General of Army Air Defence (DGAAD) Lt. General VK Saxena said.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 May 2015 14:17

Once the BM is over the cloud cover and arcing high, you kind of get a good bead over 100s of kilometers, with super-cold sensors, adaptive optics to compensate (for the beams) the atmos distortion et al.

ABL, though it (allegedly) worked over hundreds of kilometers, could not be produced in numbers and deployed, due to its fuelling complexity. Khan's current threats and capability, cannot justify a few 10s of that thingy deployed, vs current solutions (100s of hellphyr drones to take out BM launchers + PACIII/THAAD layers).

If there were soviets still around, would have been a different story. However, expect a solid-state solution (powered by APUs churning out MWs), soon as cheen starts actually doing stuff that matters.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 May 2015 14:23

btw, Karan M, always wanted to ask this and the above discussion on cannisters, why are the Akash's not in cannisters? Is it some kind of a requirement or a design choice?

I would assume they would be a wee bit more better off inside a cannister, in the sweltering heat of an IA operational environment.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 May 2015 15:59

Having said that there are videos of ships knocking out small boats with laser. Obviously that is short range and "line of sight". Short range and line of sight are something that can use bullets as well. I am not arguing against research - but I must point out here that as a boy in the 1960s I read about lasers to destroy enemy targets. Billions have been spent - but not useless expenditure. That same laser is being used (apart from DVDs and communication) in surgical equipment to save eyes for example.

Don't get me wrong, DEW's and laser DEW's are in no way not the future. The Ponce is out at sea and spotting a laser as we speak. There are plans to incorporate a 150KW laser on an aircraft. Candidates include the AC-130, V-22, and the Avenger. Ground testing of that laser is a mere months away and the turret for the aerial conversion is actually flying as we speak.

I was specifically commenting on the ABM portion of it. There is no program currently there to get this because they are concentrating on the terminal phase as in the case of the US, BM's are likely to be defended by the SM family, THAAD for forward deployments and the painstakingly hard to master GMD which is not there yet, and designed specifically for ICBM's.

after the B747 mounted YAL laser pgm was cancelled, there is no long range laser program

They shifted from chemical to SSL and fiber and this is where the research is being conducted and products developed. Expect the B-3 bomber to have provisions for a DEW, if not a DEW from the start. But there are no efforts to get it into the ABM capability. There are other areas where the lasers can reverse the cost curve such as knocking out UAV's , low flying cruise missiles and eventually aircraft (replace the Patriot batteries, or at least support them with an unlimited magazine DEW). A Nuclear tipped, IRBM or even an ICBM headed towards a major metropolitan area is a valuable enough target that you can afford to spend a $10 million missile at it, or even two, or three, or 10 for that matter since the capability you are developing is not intended at fending off a few hundred ICBM's at a time etc The EMRG however is heading towards that goal and it will take time (15 years perhaps, perhaps 10 for the ship (test is next year on)) to get limited Missile defense capability but Missiles are still likely to be the KINGS for a long time especially in the ABM role.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aero ... t-anything

Sidenote:

ABM sheild is a pain in the A$$ to master, but the only real way forward if you want a credible capably to fend off at least some attacks headed your way. The US will pay a cost to develop it that is proportional to its economy and defense spending (and defense cost) and the Indian MOD will pay a cost that is proportional to its spending and cost. No one has to wit 50 years to begin because it took he MDA 20 years or whatever to master the tech. What sort of logic is this ? (article). India works on a technology/capability because it needs it..not because someone else may be doing the same.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 16:33

hnair wrote:btw, Karan M, always wanted to ask this and the above discussion on cannisters, why are the Akash's not in cannisters? Is it some kind of a requirement or a design choice?

I would assume they would be a wee bit more better off inside a cannister, in the sweltering heat of an IA operational environment.

They just ruggedized the missile itself to cope. See 4:15 onwards for some of the stuff they ran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8v5vPVfICY
Trishul was canisterized, I surmise to reduce the corrosion aspect from naval use.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 05 May 2015 17:37

OT: Some DDM fun from the IBN page on akash delivery to Army.

"The core of Army Air Defense is responsible to provide air defense cover to the alotted vulnerable assets. Akash weapon system is a state of the art short ranged, surface to air missile system. The teeth of the system are the super sonic rocket ramget missile (As opposed to the slightly less powerful ramput missile) . This missile has a range from 3 to 25 km. It has an altitude from as low as 30 metres going upto 20 kms. It flies several macs (note: in the UK speed is measured in KFCs and BKs), upto 2.5 mac "

"If you fire two missiles in a ripple it produces a single shot k - capability of 98%, we have a 3D central acquisition radar which looks far beyond upto 120 kms. As the target comes near, we have the state of the art face tracking (helps unlock ur workstation securely from about 60 kms away) radar that tracks the target, and the systems which control the missile precisely. Our regiment has 6 fire units, each fire unit has 4 Akaash launchers, each with three ready to fire missiles, so a lot of fire power goes along with each fire unit," Director General of Army Air Defence (DGAAD) Lt. General VK Saxena said.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 18:44

>>>we have the state of the art face tracking

he said phased (array) tracking. journo took it as face tracking.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 05 May 2015 18:55

Karan M wrote:>>>we have the state of the art face tracking

he said phased (array) tracking. journo took it as face tracking.

I was wondering where did he get this face tracking from

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 05 May 2015 19:51

shiv wrote:
VibhavS wrote: Seriously after throwing that much of Money at it I think the Americans should be able to intercept the next Armageddon Asteroid Headed our way. ICBMs are piddling stuff.
This money argument is unconvincing for the same reason that Mangalyaan worked for less money than that wotzitsname Hollywood space movie. If we compare the American angle with the Indian angle every time then India is always fail-fail - especially when the great America itself has failed after spending money that India cannot afford. "America - with all its money cannot do it so is is laughable that Indians should be trying" is an argument that is impossible to refute but all it does is say that America is great and Indians should not bother trying what the US cannot do. "Look at America first before thinking, talking or acting" is an argument that never fails to attract my attention on BRF. This is an attitude that weighs Indians down in surprising places - even in the armed forces and certainly in the media - apart from BRF.

Rhetorical question: Is it any easier to hit Mars than it is to hit an incoming ballistic missile?

Sirji money = research = progress would you not agree? Of course cost of research in the US is expensive, much more than in India. But $100BN is no small change. They have invested a lot in the BMD technologies and they are reaping the benefits of the same. They lead the race and they are helping the Israelis as well.

On the Indian point - I think we should go for it all guns blazing. Who cares if the Americans failed at it or were successful. Their successes and failures are of no consequence to us. We have to spend our own time doing research and making the mistakes and learning. My little joke was about the fact that they have spent enough money on the problem to intercept asteroids

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 05 May 2015 20:13

[b And who is Dr Gopalaswamy sitting in US and ridiculing DRDO?/b]

IIRC he was the guy who proposed in flight liquifaction of air using some vortex principle for the hypersonic plane..that was a flop show. I think he was in charge of hypersonic plane when Dr Kalam was DRDO chief. I have seen his model of hypersonic plane (made of thermocol) hanging from the roof of one of the DRDO stall at aero india ..Like a toy chidiya hanging inside a car..probably that waw what Shiv was referring to in one of his posts.

I dont understand why these guys migrate to US after retirement.may be part of khan schemes in the work.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 05 May 2015 20:15

Brar saheb, you mean that there is no active program discussed in public for using lasers for ABM. Remember reading somewhere that Americans and Russians had tested X-ray based lasers sometime in the past. Dont know where that went. Since they were talking about small X-ray laser devices being boosted out of the atmosphere. Maybe they still are working on the breakthroughs technologies required to make a laser based system a reality. As you had pointed out that the challenges within the atmosphere are tremendous.

Though my premise that they are working on it is speculation only. Missile based interception systems are too expensive and probability of kills are still quite low. Directed Energy Weapons are the future of missile defense. Just a matter of time would you not agree?

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 05 May 2015 20:23

Thank you for the answers on Canisterization disha, ramana. I understand the benefits of the same but was curious as to what stage of the development cycle they decide that the missile is ready for canisterizing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2015 20:37

I think the need for Akash first came from IA who wanted it to rotate in all directions and be rugged enough for x-country use like the SA6 which it superficially resembles. in that era, none of the medium sized SAMs were in cansisters...I think patriot PAC1 and S300PMU1 were the first ...
http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-cont ... 00x295.jpg

even now the latest Buk is not in cansister and the Patriot PAC3 is still not on any tracked vehicle ...its usually detached from the truck and seen statically.

the IAF model could presumably lend itself to easier cansisterization.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 21:19

there is little point in canisterizing a missile that is designed to be rugged enough to not need canisterization.
of course, now with QRSAM/LRSAM/MRSAM/SRAM/ERSAM and wutever SAM you can canisterize away!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 21:19

VibhavS wrote: Directed Energy Weapons are the future of missile defense. Just a matter of time would you not agree?

How much time? I have waited 50 years so far. I'm not joking. People were saying "just a matter of time" 50 years ago.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2015 21:24

Karan M wrote:there is little point in canisterizing a missile that is designed to be rugged enough to not need canisterization.
of course, now with QRSAM/LRSAM/MRSAM/SRAM/ERSAM and wutever SAM you can canisterize away!

It might permit a lighter airframe and more acceleration and agility with higher top speed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 21:28

VibhavS wrote:
Sirji money = research = progress would you not agree?

No. Research=money, progress does not equal amount of money. More money does not necessarily amount to more progress. More money=more research=more research jobs for Indians in America

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 21:30

Singha wrote:
Karan M wrote:there is little point in canisterizing a missile that is designed to be rugged enough to not need canisterization.
of course, now with QRSAM/LRSAM/MRSAM/SRAM/ERSAM and wutever SAM you can canisterize away!
It might permit a lighter airframe and more acceleration and agility with higher top speed.

yes but thats a new missile by itself! akash mk2 perhaps..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2015 21:49

a lighter agile akash mk2 will nicely interop with all existing akash radar and c3 system and even operate in mixed mode with mk1 until all mk1 are EOL. in that sense it will be like vl-mica or derby(spyder) but with ramjet giving it more powered flight.

perhaps astra mk1 can be blended into this system as the drdo QRSAM to form a nice short-medium combined package.

addl such units will be needed to protect the LRSAM(barak8) and BMD units from airborne threats.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 21:54

I hope thats the plan!! yet to see any tangible serious funding directed towards the program though..

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 05 May 2015 22:06

Karan M wrote:there is little point in canisterizing a missile that is designed to be rugged enough to not need canisterization.
of course, now with QRSAM/LRSAM/MRSAM/SRAM/ERSAM and wutever SAM you can canisterize away!

Doesn't canisterization also allow for faster reloads, because units are self contained & modular?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 22:10

thats a pretty valid point and one with relevance to systems like the akash. but, even so with dual salvo per target, one IAF squadron can handle 12 targets at a time.. (24 missiles available ready to fire), hard to envisage another 12 targets appearing super fast.
but against massed volleys of cruise missiles might well be a decisive factor!!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 May 2015 22:17

VibhavS wrote:So time for a newbie to be a newbie and ask a question - Canisterizing would mean we are close to a production standard for the missile?

Not necessarily, though it could be construed as end of development phase. That is, closer to induction. Induction means IOC (Initial Operational Clearance). After that user tests them to award FOC (Final Operational Clearance). This is you call it as Production standard, isn't it?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2015 22:42

pankajs wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 5m5 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

BTW the last AAD BMD test was indeed in a canisterized configuration.

From Rajnikanth article:

A senior DRDO official told The Indian Express that they hoped to conduct another test within a couple of months. “It is part of the development process. This was the first time we launched the interceptor missile from a canister. The target was also a more difficult one than the simulated Prithvi missiles used earlier,” the DRDO official said.

unless talking about same flight!!!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 May 2015 22:57

Prem Kumar wrote: Doesn't canisterization also allow for faster reloads, because units are self contained & modular?

We can achieve faster reloads even with missiles (such as Pinaka Mk1) that are not canisterized. But that requires special mechanism/tools.
OTOH, canisterization makes it easier to do that with less complexity. Same for Handling & Mobility (this indirectly increases their lifetime).

But beyond all these, more important part is it reduces the reaction time. From system coming online to missile-firing. It is meant to take lesser time with canisterization.
So we can see that all Quick Reaction missiles are expected to be canisterized.

Better demonstrated through the words of ......

"In the second strike capability, the most important thing is how fast we can react," DRDO head head Avinash Chander said.

"We are working on cannisterized systems that can launch from anywhere at anytime," Chander said. "We are making much more agile, fast-reacting, stable missiles so response can be within minutes."

Canisterization requires that a high degree of confidence be held in the dependability of the missile's components so as to make it a 'wooden round' i.e once deployed the missile moves in the canister itself carried by a truck

- helps to react fast.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2015 03:49

Also remember the canister discussion is about AAD and not the Agni series.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 May 2015 04:34

Karan M wrote:
hnair wrote:btw, Karan M, always wanted to ask this and the above discussion on cannisters, why are the Akash's not in cannisters? Is it some kind of a requirement or a design choice?

I would assume they would be a wee bit more better off inside a cannister, in the sweltering heat of an IA operational environment.
They just ruggedized the missile itself to cope. See 4:15 onwards for some of the stuff they ran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8v5vPVfICY
Trishul was canisterized, I surmise to reduce the corrosion aspect from naval use.

Back then when Akash was conceived it wasn't a norm to have "MR" SAM missiles in a canister. Anyone know any other canisterized 25km+ SAM systems that were around in the 1970s/1980s?

Besides, each Akash Mk.1 weights 600kgs and is mounted on a slew-able pod. If you add canister the weight the slew mechanism will need to handle will go up further. For larger missiles, canister-based system makes more sense if they are vertically launched.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 May 2015 05:11

What is the need for canistering Akash again?

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 May 2015 05:26

^^^

I think the original discussion was around advantages of canisterization of missiles, including Akash.

We have to remember that most of the time Akash missile will be in a transport canister offering safe storage, handling and monitoring of it.