Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Aug 2015 00:16

Shaun wrote:There is mismatch in the capability of the missile and the radar guiding it. Okay have to wait for Mk2 .

Why do you think there is a mismatch as versus deliberate choice for future growth potential?

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Aug 2015 06:23

Shaun wrote:There is mismatch in the capability of the missile and the radar guiding it. Okay have to wait for Mk2 .

There always would be, won't it ? If 25km is Akash's engagement range, then the radar should have far higher range to detect, classify, track the target before the operator can launch the missile. Not to mention that the missile may be launched at a target when it is still outside the range but coming head-on.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 09 Aug 2015 09:10

plus the missile itself can be xx km ahead of the tracking radar.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Aug 2015 09:25

If we consider Rajendra having capability ,similar or suppressing Flap Lid B than the tracking and engagement range of Rajendra is 2X the range of the upcoming Akash Mk2 . This just don't add up or DRDO is understating the range of MK2.
There is a RPF receiver antenna in Akash Mk1 , what is the purpose of that antenna , for proximity fuse ??

My last post before i get brick beating from shiv sir

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Aug 2015 11:23

Austin wrote: “We have a two-pronged approach to exploit the hypersonic realm – upgrading the existing BrahMos engine to achieve Mach 5+ speed in three to five years and simultaneously working on a pure hypersonic engine to breach Mach 7 in five-seven years,” Mishra said.

Oogle says Ramjet ignition is possible between speed of Mach 3 and 6.

Dr Mishra says upgrading engine of Brahmos can achieve Mach 5+ ( I am assuming its between Mach 5 and 6 ).

Using Kerosine as fuel would not give the necessary Isp to push through before Mach 3.5 envelop , Previous news of new Fuel develped for Mach 5 http://tass.ru/en/russia/778026

"The recipe has been created and the energy accumulated in this fuel will help our aircraft exceed the speed of Mach 5," he said.

Alternatively there are test done using Hydrocarbon/Hydrogen for Ramjet beyond Mach 5 but then it would be stable fuel. So a combination of modifying Brahmos ramjet engine and using new type of Fuel would be the trick for mach 5+ flight , perhaps even strengthening the structures to maintain integrity.

Also looks like potential of Ramjet engine will be fully exploited ( no one had done this so far ) before Scramjet matures which will happen next decade

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Aug 2015 19:05

You also have to account for the fuel and range and thermal requirements as you nearly double the speed. What impact will that have on the size, range and payload of the weapon and the integration with the platforms carrying it?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Aug 2015 19:06

I think they can still retain the current brahmos airframe shape upto mach5 for sure because the old
phoenix AIM54 AAM had the conventional shape and not the new age "wedge" type shape the hypersonic test vehicles have. but leading edges may be prone to more heating as brahmos will fly much longer than phoenix at mach5 and could need some special materials and coatings.

range might decrease though.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Aug 2015 19:29

brar_w wrote:You also have to account for the fuel and range and thermal requirements as you nearly double the speed. What impact will that have on the size, range and payload of the weapon and the integration with the platforms carrying it?

Range would be under 300 as per MTCR atleast officially , IT depends on the fuel and specific impulse it generated , Brahmos in its current form is over engineered and understated for range.

Considering the warhead weight of 300 kg for Brahmos they can reduce the warhead weight as speed would be nearly 2x times of current brahmos.

They will certainly have to look at the materials , I am not sure if the current Brahmos structure which is metal can withstand thermal stress generated by Mach 5-6 , they will have too look at Composites.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Aug 2015 19:57

Singha wrote:I think they can still retain the current brahmos airframe shape upto mach5 for sure because the old
phoenix AIM54 AAM had the conventional shape and not the new age "wedge" type shape the hypersonic test vehicles have. but leading edges may be prone to more heating as brahmos will fly much longer than phoenix at mach5 and could need some special materials and coatings.

range might decrease though.

Range will decrease..The Phoenix employed a Ballistic profile and the problems there were that it coasted post Mach 4.3 ish and rocket burnout. Ramjets sustain propulsion ideally throughout the flight, and anti ship missiles have a larger (extremely large compared to a missile like the Phoenix) performance envelope in the medium to low altitude. So a bit different from a thermal management point of view.

The Aim-54 burn time was around 150-180 seconds (iirc)...If you want an anti-ship missile with a 300-350 km range and a 1.5 to 2x cruise speed in an anti-ship missile envelope you will have to make a lot of sacrifices without adding to size and weight..While 200-300 km is still good for Ramjet if you want to add range (if that is allowed by the treaty) you will have to change propulsion. RATTLRS had a smaller length to the Brahmos but a longer range with a turbojet and had a mach 3+ speed goal...

The problem with a reduction in range will be that the Chinese will have a 300-500 km stick on their ships so you will have to match that envelope or be at a disadvantage. Even though hypothetically their missiles may be easier to shoot down, you still have to account for that in your VLS load-outs that much like the AB cannot be changed once the ship has left the port. If your enemy has a longer missile range than you you have to load more defensive assets to overcome that..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Aug 2015 20:33

Austin wrote: Considering the warhead weight of 300 kg for Brahmos they can reduce the warhead weight as speed would be nearly 2x times of current brahmos.

Austin the kinetic energy carried by Brahmos is huge. Every demo video shows it passing right through the target, wall or ship - presumably because the warhead is inert. The missile plus warhead hits the target at 3 mach - and even if warhead weight were reduced from 300 to 150 kg it would still carry a formidable punch even at existing speeds

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Aug 2015 21:02

shiv wrote: Austin the kinetic energy carried by Brahmos is huge. Every demo video shows it passing right through the target, wall or ship - presumably because the warhead is inert. The missile plus warhead hits the target at 3 mach - and even if warhead weight were reduced from 300 to 150 kg it would still carry a formidable punch even at existing speeds

That is what I was trying to state they can reduce the warhead say to 100 Kg and trade the lower warhead weight for range/speed and use the 2-3 times increase in KE performance for lethality.

Compared to subsonic cruise missile Brahmos has 9 times the KE and if they increase speed to M 5-6 they would get KE of 14-17 times

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Aug 2015 21:48

Ok, here goes about Akash update whatever I have picked up so far on my years of trolling in BRF.

1. Austin, Trishul was not command guided, it was a beam rider. Barak is command guided alright.
2. Akash is command guided which by nature introduces latency in guidance instructions while the missile fly away further from the radar and beyond a point the kill probability drops even if the engine still has necessary oomph and radar has higher tracking range. Here, the static radar calculates the position of the missile in relation to the target, then calculates the necessary guidance instructions for the missile and spoon feeds the same. By law of physics, this instruction takes progressively more time to reach the missile and may be completely out of sync with the target maneuver when the missile is about to merge AND far away from the guidance radar. Hence for extended range, seeker is essential for retaining higher kill probability even though for shorter range command guidance suffices keeping the cost low.
3. Semi active/track via missile is easiest to incorporate in an existing command guidance missile and hence SA-6 went that way.
4. Semi active has the disadvantage that the tracking radar needs to paint the target continuously till engagement is over. Also tracking radar needs that much extra power making it more vulnerable to ARM.
5. Active radar seekers are more costly and less accurate compared to heat seekers for equivalent volume and weight but have better range. Hence most BVR missiles have active radar seeker but most of the WVRAAM as well as MANPADs use infrared which is also more difficult to jam compared to radar seekers.
6. With HELINA nearing maturity, it would be better to have a heat seeker front-end to Akash when the range increase is mere 10-15 km. It can fly upto the current range of 25 km on command guidance and then the handover can happen to the heat seeker with fall back on radar based command guidance. Not only the cost of seeker will be low, it will also be tremendously difficult to jam the missile as the target has to fool both command guidance RADAR and INFRARED seeker simultaneously.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 10 Aug 2015 11:35

Picklu wrote:
6. With HELINA nearing maturity, it would be better to have a heat seeker front-end to Akash when the range increase is mere 10-15 km. It can fly upto the current range of 25 km on command guidance and then the handover can happen to the heat seeker with fall back on radar based command guidance. Not only the cost of seeker will be low, it will also be tremendously difficult to jam the missile as the target has to fool both command guidance RADAR and INFRARED seeker simultaneously.

Not really. HeliNa seeker is LWIR, the requirement to take out aerial targets is MWIR and NIR array based seekers. Even the image processing isn't alike.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2015 12:36

The BrahMos Project: History and Outlook

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 12 Aug 2015 05:08

http://www.oneindia.com/india/oneindia- ... 33530.html

Brahmos to be launched from Su-30 by "year end".

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Aug 2015 08:16

^I thought the first mki with bmos was already handed over to the AF?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Aug 2015 08:22

Cain Marko wrote:^I thought the first mki with bmos was already handed over to the AF?

A plane capable of carrying Brahmos has been handed over. The missile still needs to be test fired

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Aug 2015 13:16

yay!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 460898.cms

Pinaka II user trials in Jaisalmer by year endJatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Aug 13, 2015, 05.06 AM IST
JODHPUR: The desert land of Jaislamer will get to witness the user-trials of much-awaited Pinaka II, a complete multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) system with a range of 60 kilometres. The range of Pinaka II is 20 kilometres more than Pinaka I version which has already been inducted into the armed forces.

Further, in what can be termed as an extremely significant chain of developments, Pinaka II has gone into manufacturing stage and the same shall be manufactured in large numbers and delivered to the Indian Army by December so that the latter can kick-start the user trials for Pinaka II here. Meanwhile, the work has started on the 'guided' version of Pinaka.

Anil M Datar, a scientist and director general, armament and combat engineering (ACE) systems, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said the 'in-house' or 'technical trials', actually a part of development trials for Pinaka II, have been completed in two phases. "The first phase was conducted in Balasore for checking the range and the second one at Pokhran for checking the accuracy and consistency, and the performance levels were very encouraging," he said.

He further said the development trials were successful and now the Pinaka II rocket systems are being manufactured in huge quantities in production lines for being handed over as per the projected demand to the army by December this year.

"Following this, the user trials shall start," he said.

The Pinaka has been indigenously developed by the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, a DRDO laboratory.

Datar also said that 'submunition warheads' which have been successfully tested for Pinaka I in Pokhran field firing range during June last week this year, shall be used in Pinaka II as well which is going to act as a force-multiplier while supplementing the artillery guns as well.

Pinaka, the indigenous unguided rocket system which has been undergoing extensive testing for the past 20 years, is capable of neutralising large areas with rapid salvos.

The multi barrel rocket launcher used in Pinaka I shall be used in Pinaka II as well.

Having proven its mettle during the Kargil war, Pinaka is capable of incorporating different kinds of warheads rendering it all the more lethal for the enemy. Pinaka takes pride in its low cost vis-a-vis other such rocket systems in the world bestowed with shoot and scoot capabilities.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Aug 2015 13:16

Now for Prahar/Pragati news!! User trials and what not.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2015 14:04

if they are already in manufacturing the user trials would be confirmatory trials not the type that comes back a list 88 changes.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Aug 2015 14:37

Yes, waiting for the Pragati/Prahar trials, no news for quite some time, wonder what's happening.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2015 00:04

Karan M wrote:yay!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 460898.cms

...

The multi barrel rocket launcher used in Pinaka I shall be used in Pinaka II as well.
...

Looks like the same dimensions for the Mk.1 and Mk.2 rockets!

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 14 Aug 2015 00:29

No the Pinaka-Mk2 is 5.2m compared to 4.95m length of MK1. But they use the same launcher. If 120 km Pinaka-II is in works then it would be bigger diameter. Maybe 300 mm like smerch.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Aug 2015 01:28

pinaka-mk1 + rocket mk2 is a good export candidate

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 20:02

IA Chief on Akash induction
http://videos.oneindia.com/affiliate/64 ... ystem.html
One thing to note about Suhag sir. This gent most of the time appears like he wants to go 10 rounds in the boxing ring. Tough looking person!!

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 17 Aug 2015 16:59

China introduces rockets with 150 Km range.

How long before the Shitistani Army acquires this? India needs to junk Smerch and concentrate on developing longer Pinaka variants. How long in the tooth are the GRAD's in service? Too many types will only add to logistical challenges.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 17 Aug 2015 17:57

^This is the best news possible for Prahaar/Pragati.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 17 Aug 2015 18:36

Agree with @Arun Menon

We are still stuck in the mentality of "ghar ki murgi dal barabar" .

But when a competitor acquires any new weapon we can't wait to get our hands on that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Aug 2015 18:40

as night follows the day we are going to need a air launched hypersonic(mach6) missile to defeat the best protected targets, backed up by the hypersonic shaurya in its depressed trajectory powered flight fired from the ground.

we better plan to have something in IOC phase by 2022 a bare 7 years from now, with FOC in 2025.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Aug 2015 00:10

The missile cluster is pretty silent. There is a ton of stuff they are stated to be working on, and with NaMo and co increasing funding earlier this year, I hope things have become better.
NGLGB
Glide Bomb w/seeker
Family of PGMs/munitions
NGARM
QRSAM
Akash Mk2

etc etc.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 Aug 2015 02:24

If Prahaar can come in 6-8 launcher with range of 180-200 km that will take care of any unguided rocket the pakis can get hold off.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2015 07:23

i wonder why the delay after the 2nd successful test of nirbhay. hope a ground launched version is being urgently worked on..can use prahaar launcher i think.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 18 Aug 2015 07:55

Not the Pakis, the Chinese have fielded an impressive Rocket artillery. Not only in range but also in numbers and variants. Some of their rocket artillery is said to provide range of 200+ plus kms. We have to catch up with mass production of long range artillery with good range. The next variant of 300 mm Pinaka is said to be able to provide a range of 120km. So the induction of Prahaar is a gap filler to take on long range Chinese artillery and very useful in the mountain terrain because of its vertical launch capability.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2015 08:39

uddu wrote:Not the Pakis, the Chinese have fielded an impressive Rocket artillery. Not only in range but also in numbers and variants. Some of their rocket artillery is said to provide range of 200+ plus kms. We have to catch up with mass production of long range artillery with good range. The next variant of 300 mm Pinaka is said to be able to provide a range of 120km. So the induction of Prahaar is a gap filler to take on long range Chinese artillery and very useful in the mountain terrain because of its vertical launch capability.

Sorry. I disagree. The response to long range unguided/guided rockets should not be a ditto copy. It should be some anti-missile/rocket defence to shoot down those rockets or hit the launchers

Nothing personal but on most military jingo fora I see this fallacy that a particular offensive tech should be matched by something similar. NO. When something offensive and dangerous is developed we need to do something to make ourselves immune and make that new weapon obsolete.

If country X develops stealth, we need to develop anti stealth measures. If country X develops missiles we need to neutralize that advantage. We should not think like teenage girls reacting to a friend's new party dress by getting a similar but better dress. Better to get that girl's boyfriend by sleeping with him first by showing him what's under the dress.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 18 Aug 2015 09:29

MLRS are proliferating because they are sort of bomblets of the guided missile payload. Unlike an incoming BM neutralising a ripple fired 200km area weapon isnt yet cost effective or very feasible. They are portable and from the look of it not BM expensive. Unlike BMs destroying a launcher or two takes out little capability from a battery and not much else, stores being available for remaining launchers. Counter MLR or BM strikes will have ukraine level success.

Now the chinese typically built their main MLRs to be able to fire from heavy platforms onto some island they are trying to take over. The land systems werent all that interesting till they startedalong the smersch path. and handed over copies to the bakis.

By all means, think anti-MLRS but ignoring very long range rockets (large volume disposable level cost, not show piece smersch level) from your own arsenal isnt very smart. Presumably as there are places where these could be applied in both bakistan-india and china-india context. Even with reduced ranges, they probably serve a purpose in the plains and non-plains.

Just as another out of the box thought, the railgun type launchers could be great if built and installed silo style in fixed locations. Build a "great gun" that will heave material over and above any mountains into MLR distances. Automate it and fire a few every jumma around noon for operational preparedness. Saves the headaches from these unscheduled 120mm matches. The matches start every fridin at noon. They can take the weekend off like any other team if they want.

mody · Post by **mody** » 18 Aug 2015 10:56

A defensive weapon against Rockets would something like the Iron dome. However, given that its a guided system, against someone like China, it would have limited success. China would be able to simply overwhelm the system with the sheer volume of cheaper rockets. In this case, the attacking weapon will be cheaper then the counter weapon and hence when the volume of fire is more, it becomes very difficult to counteract.

Both the solutions would be required in this case. A counter weapon on the lines of Iron Dome or David's sling and Pinaka MK-II/MKIII and Prahar.

Prahar and GPS/IRNSS/Glonass guided Pinaka would be really good counter battery weapon to have. Though I'm sure the Chinese too will be looking at GPS type guidance for their rocket systems.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Aug 2015 12:39

^^^

Probably a more cost-effective solution would be gun-based air defense like Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM).

Probably would be able to take out air-launched PGMs as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2015 13:23

mody wrote:A defensive weapon against Rockets would something like the Iron dome. However, given that its a guided system, against someone like China, it would have limited success. China would be able to simply overwhelm the system with the sheer volume of cheaper rockets. In this case, the attacking weapon will be cheaper then the counter weapon and hence when the volume of fire is more, it becomes very difficult to counteract.

Both the solutions would be required in this case. A counter weapon on the lines of Iron Dome or David's sling and Pinaka MK-II/MKIII and Prahar.

Prahar and GPS/IRNSS/Glonass guided Pinaka would be really good counter battery weapon to have. Though I'm sure the Chinese too will be looking at GPS type guidance for their rocket systems.

Yes. In addition:

What targets are good for Smerch/Pinaka type batteries? They are camps, concentrations of troops and armour, maybe air bases, radar installations, ammunition and weapons dumps.

These need to be dispersed and camouflaged as far as possible, use decoys, and in mountainous terrain simply hidden on the "shadow" side of the mountain. The other thing is radar to locate the source and a guided weapon to hit it within one minute of the first rockets being launched.

Anyhow I did not want to get into this. I was merely pointing out that we have a knee jerk response to any weapon acquired by China or Pakistan by saying "We need that too". That is an error. We need defence against that weapon. We could by all means get a similar weapon too, but it will not protect us against their weapon.

For example the Chinese have S300 and do they have S 400 too? (I don't know). What are we going to do about that? If we get the same thing that is not going to stop our aircraft from being shot down.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 18 Aug 2015 13:35

srai, A problem for filling the sky with projectiles (for defense) is that what goes up must also come down, for the most part. The chinese scale (we assume they cant quite line them up for kilometers in tibet, although the train is probably changing that) is a problem. Dispersal, and active measures like shiv and others noted are better choice. These C-RAM types might fare better in Mali or palestine, probably not all that well even against the ukrainian rebels. bakis or chinese will be 10s of times the ukrainian fight (see extensive use of MLRs by both sides, even if just grad for the most part, salvoes were the weapon of choice, defenses non-existent).

UAVs, tons of them. Automatic detection, ballistic trajectory radars. Weapons in the air (again unmanned if possible) prior to anything scooting. This gets you past bakis with minimal damage. Hundreds upon hundreds of cuise missiles and equal to the incoming MLRs for the chinese. At 200+km, its not a small time fight anymore.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 18 Aug 2015 14:11

Shivji, agree that defensive option is an added advantage, now has to take out that launcher. How to do that?