Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Dr. Prahlada, chief controller for Aeronautics & Services Interaction at the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), tells Aviation Week that the initial army order will be for two regiments — approximately 2,000 missiles.
.....
The Rs 14,000 crore ($3.1 billion) contract already has been signed by the army and BDL. The company is expected to make 500 missiles per year, and the first batch will roll out by September 2012. “All the missiles under this order will be of the same version,” Prahlada says
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
So, Akash prodution will reach 2000+>1300 i.e, >3300 missiles in the next 4 years. (Since the IAF order is 2/3 the IA order approximately). This is reasonably large. Still about 1/10 the scale of Soviet SA-6 production in 1967-1983 (500 systems, 10's of thousands of missiles...) Maybe, when future variants like Mk2 etc join the picture, there will be still larger orders...
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
in the current scenarios -- YES.Gagan wrote:Would AESA radars associated with SAMs be less vulnerable to:
1. Jamming
2. Attacks by HARMs
TIA
But in the next 5-10 years down the road may be not. AESA is an evolutionary technology right now.So its adversaries are not evolved that much in the jamming spectrum.
Way to go against HARMS is mutli layered defense with missiles having active radar seekers.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
What is a "re-attack" WRT a missile? tried google, but could not find an explanation. Thx.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Like in Harpoon block ID, where it has extra range to allow the missile to re-attack a target missed on an initial pass, flying a circular or a loop pattern. Basically, must persist information on the target acquired, and re-engage if missed [basically re-guide or advanced guidance system with on-board target acquisition system IDentifier].
Now that only if I read about harpoons correct?
Now that only if I read about harpoons correct?
Last edited by SaiK on 27 Mar 2011 06:45, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
MPNAG? I dont think we have even an idea to develop man portable nag
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Nothing wrong, but it is taking time to get the MMW seeker and guidance system ready - Too kaamplex to develop especially with the type of radar chosen to avoid clutter. They may perhaps be advancing the radar technology in it to active seeker..Pranav wrote:What is wrong with Nag?
Further a dual-mode mmw/ir beam combiner perhaps might have been something they can think off in the future, if they have mmw beam-riding resolved. Lot of kaamplexities include terrain contour, misidentification, yadi yada.
These technologies must be staged.. Hellfire is not hellish if it had not done it in tranches.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Rohit,rohitvats wrote:^^^Javelin is part replacement for Milan series of ATGMs.....these will replace the Konkurs and earlier generation of ATGM used on BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BRDM.
I understand WRT, the javelin, but as per the article the Israeli missile is in the same range class the Javelin. If the article is accurate, then I fail to understand the rational for duplicating the capability in therms of range and other categories. The better option for the application mention by you will be the NAG it self. Considering the MMW is not a stated requirement for the missile at the moment.
JMT applies.
Re-attack
On re-attack:
Hmmmmm..... trying to understand.
A long range, GPS enabled, air-to-ground.................. misses a target? Just trying to imagine such a missile ........... heads towards the ground target. "Misses". Climbs, circles/loops .............. engages the same ground target.......
Ground target is moving I guess. It could not happen it it is stationary.
Hmmmmm..... trying to understand.
A long range, GPS enabled, air-to-ground.................. misses a target? Just trying to imagine such a missile ........... heads towards the ground target. "Misses". Climbs, circles/loops .............. engages the same ground target.......
Ground target is moving I guess. It could not happen it it is stationary.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Keeping the surface aside (possible mission since harpoons have many variants), on the ground movable targets could include say reparked AWACS, refuellers, large strategic movable military assets [ICBM launchers], rail mobile systems, movable CnC posts, other coastal assets, etc. I dunno what is in IAF's doctrine for this need.
BTW, you may want to wait for the gurus and dhronacharya's answers before we dive further!
BTW, you may want to wait for the gurus and dhronacharya's answers before we dive further!
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
The maximum range is 25-30 km depending on conditions. Minimum range will be less but I am unable to find a figure - maybe 1.5 km or somethingUttam wrote: about the range being 25-30 km. Does this mean the missile is ineffective if the target has come closer than 25 km? Or is it that depending on other conditional (may be like weather, etc.) the maximum range can vary from 25 to 30 KM?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
x-post from Libya thread:
I think Russia will not deliver on Brahmos air-launch as it will compromise US interests. I would suggest that using solid fuel one can get smaller, lighter, faster, and longer-range missile, without depending on Russians.Singha wrote:indeed - offense in this case is the best defence. as discussed before, if we can put in place the systems to destroy 50% of anything hostile that intrudes to within 1500km from our shore (sub, ship, planes), there is very little means to conventionally target us in the "low/zero attrition to themselves" mode the "West" likes to indulge in. there is no public support in the west for a high attrition war against enemies that are not a existential threat for them.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
The range quote there are pure ballistic ranges , so in an ideal conditions for non-manouvering target Akask can engage a target between 25 - 27 Km , once target starts manouvering and tries to defeat Akash via its own Kinetic Performance the range would substantially reduce.shiv wrote:The maximum range is 25-30 km depending on conditions. Minimum range will be less but I am unable to find a figure - maybe 1.5 km or somethingUttam wrote: about the range being 25-30 km. Does this mean the missile is ineffective if the target has come closer than 25 km? Or is it that depending on other conditional (may be like weather, etc.) the maximum range can vary from 25 to 30 KM?
I have come across figures for Aster-30 which has a stated range of ~ 120 km drops to as low as 25 km for hard manouvering supersonic target , similarly an A2A missile like R-37M which has a range of more 400 km for JSTAR/AWACS/B-52 type target would drop to 150 km for a fighter size target.
I think a lot would depend on the speed , manouvering and how the target tries to behave eg out manouver the missile.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
would a mach3 solid fuel missile with a 300kg warhead be larger or smaller than brahmos?
the KH59 solid fuel model weight 1 ton has a 320kg warhead but a range of only 115km and speed of 850 kmph. pretty reasonable intercept for a modern SAM. to increase the speed of such a weapon + increase the range to atleast 300km sounds like you need [a] more propellant burn the propellant faster to get more thrust or increase the diameter to burn more propellant than current diameter
will adding 1.5 t of propellant + airframe casing give it MACH3 and 300km range as the air launched brahmos proposes?
the KH59 solid fuel model weight 1 ton has a 320kg warhead but a range of only 115km and speed of 850 kmph. pretty reasonable intercept for a modern SAM. to increase the speed of such a weapon + increase the range to atleast 300km sounds like you need [a] more propellant burn the propellant faster to get more thrust or increase the diameter to burn more propellant than current diameter
will adding 1.5 t of propellant + airframe casing give it MACH3 and 300km range as the air launched brahmos proposes?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
maybe they can shorten the Shourya and experiment with making a air launched variant of it as a fast attack missile on static targets first? but again with MKI being only airframe large enough for such missiles, Russia can still play coy about it.
maybe the time has come to hook up with Airbus and and go for a serious long range bomber mod to the A321, with a rotary bomb bay capable of unleashing 8 missiles each of 3t weight and 8 mts max length, and adapters to fit a shitload of LGB and conventional bombs B1 style.
maybe the time has come to hook up with Airbus and and go for a serious long range bomber mod to the A321, with a rotary bomb bay capable of unleashing 8 missiles each of 3t weight and 8 mts max length, and adapters to fit a shitload of LGB and conventional bombs B1 style.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
The weight of the oxidiser in the solid fuel will be extra, but a separate booster as is the case with Brahmos is not required. However, calculating the difference in weight of the body is more complex - Brahmos has air intake + Ramjet + long exhaust pipe, but the tank carrying Kerosene need not hold any pressure and hence can be light weight. But then you need a separate body structure to withstand the high G manoeuvres. In solid fuel missile, I don't know whether the rocket casing itself is the body. If yes, there is no separate missile body and hence some more weight saving.would a mach3 solid fuel missile with a 300kg warhead be larger or smaller than brahmos?
Ifeel a solid fuel missile will be somewhat heavier, though it may not be a thumb rule.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Almost certainly fake news. Israeli news sites are generally not the most trustworthy, and this one quotes 'Defense News' another notoriously unreliable news group. A 1 billion $ deal would have generated dozens of articles in desi newspapers.Pranav wrote:What is this about a huge order for spike missiles to be installed on Russian-built combat vehicles - http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/ ... 0&fid=1725
What is wrong with Nag?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 113
- Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
- Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
ground effect "caspian sea monster" saga is well know... i was wondering if there is any missile which uses ground effect for anti shipping role??
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
BVR-AA engagement: For terminal manoeuvrings, would a ramjet more efficient or solid fuel driven?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
The range mentioned is not ballistic range but effective range for practical intercepts. Did some googling and this is what I found:Austin wrote:The range quote there are pure ballistic ranges , so in an ideal conditions for non-manouvering target Akask can engage a target between 25 - 27 Km , once target starts manouvering and tries to defeat Akash via its own Kinetic Performance the range would substantially reduce.
I have come across figures for Aster-30 which has a stated range of ~ 120 km drops to as low as 25 km for hard manouvering supersonic target , similarly an A2A missile like R-37M which has a range of more 400 km for JSTAR/AWACS/B-52 type target would drop to 150 km for a fighter size target.
I think a lot would depend on the speed , manouvering and how the target tries to behave eg out manouver the missile.
It has a nice schematic which depicts the typical kill zones with probablility of hit.Missile range very much depends on target speed and aspect.
A nominal range of X km usually means that you can hit aircraft which are flying towards you at that range. Typically, they can pass to the side of you at about half that distance without risk beeing hit.
Another intresting point to note is the max speed of missile mentioned in the brochures. The SAM hits the max speed at burnout and then the velocity almost drops linearly with distance travelled. For Akash the graph will be flat after burnout till the intercept.
This diagram is for the Crotale NG VT-1 missile with a speed of Mach 3.5 and a range of 10 km+.
Effect of target altitude on range:
As Akash is powered throughout the flight, it won't loose energy as much as other SAMs. That would translate to better high altitude performance than other boost-glide SAMs.Altitude also has a large impact on range. The missile looses energy as it climbs, but at low altitude air resistance is greater.
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/sam.html
Cheers....
Last edited by neerajb on 27 Mar 2011 21:30, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Singha wrote:would a mach3 solid fuel missile with a 300kg warhead be larger or smaller than brahmos?
the KH59 solid fuel model weight 1 ton has a 320kg warhead but a range of only 115km and speed of 850 kmph. pretty reasonable intercept for a modern SAM. to increase the speed of such a weapon + increase the range to atleast 300km sounds like you need [a] more propellant burn the propellant faster to get more thrust or increase the diameter to burn more propellant than current diameter
will adding 1.5 t of propellant + airframe casing give it MACH3 and 300km range as the air launched brahmos proposes?
Apparently Brahmos range can be increased by raising the altitude of the initial flight as per man at Brahmos stall at aero India
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Sudden maneuvering would disrupt the airflow to the ramjet so the guidance software has to be written to do avoid sudden maneuvering - making the missile take wide curves - which is OK because it will be powered unlike an AAM that burns out and coasts.SaiK wrote:BVR-AA engagement: For terminal manoeuvrings, would a ramjet more efficient or solid fuel driven?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Effective range can vary depending on the target it is trying to intercept and weather its receding or approaching , whether its subsonic or supersonic one , the energy spend in intercepting a manouvering supersonic target would vary compared to flat subsonic cruise missile approaching the area guarded by battery.neerajb wrote:The range mentioned is not ballistic range but effective range for practical intercepts. Did some googling and this is what I found
In my conversation with Akash gent , the ramjet burns for total of 32 second you have to take into account the energy spent in trying to boost the missile from ground to air which will be much higher compared to same missile in A2A role where you can quickly take advantage of height by putting the missile in loafed trajectory.
Any ways like I have mentioned the example of Aster-30 I came across , which puts its effective range at ~ 25 km for supersonic manouvering target compared to ~ 100 km for subsonic missile , you can draw you own conclusion how this would affect other SAM's , ofcourse MBDA will always quote a range of 120 km for Aster-30
Indeed a big advantage of Ramjet is its entire powered flight (M 2.5 ) which translates to higher end game energy , the advantage that solid fuel enjoys is its higher speed which can vary from higher supersonic to hypersonic depending on the sam we are talking , plus altitude of operation.As Akash is powered throughout the flight, it won't loose energy as much as other SAMs. That would translate to better high altitude performance than other boost-glide SAMs.
Some how for reason only the designer knows best , ramjet has not been a preferred choice for sam in east and west , iirc Kub SA-6 was the last sam to be powered by ramjet and these days they have dual pluse motor like one sees in Barak-8 For us Akash serves as the best cost effective mass produce sam money can buy
BTW does any one know of Akash test involving a supersonic target , the only tests I have come across so far is it intercepting subsonic Lakshya Towed Body and the PTA itself , the other one was hitting a gun barrel dropped from parachute ... no information available of it intercepting a supersonic target in the test , do we have a supersonic target to do such tests ?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
VAYU M-MRCA - The Contending Missilesshiv wrote:Sudden maneuvering would disrupt the airflow to the ramjet so the guidance software has to be written to do avoid sudden maneuvering - making the missile take wide curves - which is OK because it will be powered unlike an AAM that burns out and coasts.SaiK wrote:BVR-AA engagement: For terminal manoeuvrings, would a ramjet more efficient or solid fuel driven?
...
MBDA Meteor
...
The need for controlled airflow (by the missile’ s electronics) to the ramjet ducts ruled out the ‘skid-to-turn’ manoeuvring of a conventional rocket- powered missile, as it will risk masking an intake and, instead, ‘bank-to-turn’ manoeuvring is adopted.
...
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Juggi G wrote:Indian Army Orders Akash Missile System
Aviation Week
So looks like an IA's Akash SAM regiment is huge!Anurag wrote:
Dr. Prahlada, chief controller for Aeronautics & Services Interaction at the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), tells Aviation Week that the initial army order will be for two regiments — approximately 2,000 missiles.
.....
The Rs 14,000 crore ($3.1 billion) contract already has been signed by the army and BDL. The company is expected to make 500 missiles per year, and the first batch will roll out by September 2012. “All the missiles under this order will be of the same version,” Prahlada says
Going by the article and cross checking with SIPRI on IA's SA-6 order for 25 systems in the 1970s, here is what an IA's Akash regiment looks to be:
IA's Akash SAM Regiment
- 1,000 x Akash Missiles (including reserves)
- 12 to 16 x Akash Batteries (judging by IAF order for 8 squadrons (or 16 batteries) w/ 1,000 Akash missiles order and looking at the original SA-6 order)
- 3 to 4 x Akash Groups (each with 4 batteries w/ GCC)
- ~80 x Akash Missiles per Battery (including reserves)
- 2,000 x Akash Missiles (including reserves)
- 24 to 32 x Akash Batteries
- 6 to 8 x Akash Groups (each with 4 batteries w/ GCC)
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6139
- Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
It is impossible for those not privy to GOI data to make any sense of these numbers. A lot of the time such threads end up being needlessly and endlessly speculative.
What numbers are needed to fulfill the mission of Akash?
It may be a simple enough question. But look at the parameters:
-From trivial eg kill probability (esp vs SA-6), to
-ECM environment
-ECCM environment
-Ancillary anti-air support-fighters
-helicopters
-man portable missiles
-drones?
-Number of targets to be defended
-Quality (priority) of targets to be defended
-Air situation over Tibet and South-Western China-ie is IAF dominance achieved?
-Political intention and subsequent authorisation for missile attacks on Chinese vicinal airbases
What numbers are needed to fulfill the mission of Akash?
It may be a simple enough question. But look at the parameters:
-From trivial eg kill probability (esp vs SA-6), to
-ECM environment
-ECCM environment
-Ancillary anti-air support-fighters
-helicopters
-man portable missiles
-drones?
-Number of targets to be defended
-Quality (priority) of targets to be defended
-Air situation over Tibet and South-Western China-ie is IAF dominance achieved?
-Political intention and subsequent authorisation for missile attacks on Chinese vicinal airbases
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
sanjaykumar wrote:It is impossible for those not privy to GOI data to make any sense of these numbers. A lot of the time such threads end up being needlessly and endlessly speculative.
...
So why even bother even looking at this forum then
A lot of discussions happen here based on bits and pieces of data released over the years by various GOI agencies (DRDO, MoD, IAF/IA/IN etc), and then many members through active discussions piece them together to get a sense of the whole (which may end up being greater than 80% accurate). I find that process to be the interesting part.
If you want only GOI access data facts, then these types of forums are not really for you ... IMO
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6139
- Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
I am also thinking of taking sanyaas only.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Actually the Akash missile's Mach 2.5 speed seems to low. Would it not be better to adapt the solid-fueled PAD / AAD missiles, which I believe can go up to Mach 4 or Mach 5?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
- Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Of late there has been a lot of discussion about whether the speed of Akash is on the lower side... Well here's something to ponder over.. Akash is suppose to intercept the following types of threats at any given time - low flying, subsonic missiles/cruise missiles, UAV's, helicopters, fighter jets? and maybe other threats. All these are relatively subsonic, barring the fighter jets and certain cruise missiles which will have a range of around Mach 2-3 at best.. So hitting these targets at speeds of Mach 2 - 2.5 is commendable for Akash. Additionally Akash, has also been tested in trying to intercept ballistic missiles. Clearly speed would be an issue here, but then again, I don't think that the primary role for Akash SAM is meant for shielding from Ballistic missiles...
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
hardly any plane flies above mach2 and in releasing A2G munitions, I think most are high subsonic only, a few like Mig25 could release a nuclear bomb from supersonic. in the akash is defending a 25km , the a/c if planning an attack with A2G will mostly be subsonic...
high speed is useful in long range missiles that have to chase or otherwise cover a long distance to intended target. it matters less as the missiles range gets smaller and smaller. high speed for a big missile also makes it tough to turn hard.
so its a balance of many factors.
I do not think the big missiles of S300-400 which fly @ mach5 can turn hard.
high speed is useful in long range missiles that have to chase or otherwise cover a long distance to intended target. it matters less as the missiles range gets smaller and smaller. high speed for a big missile also makes it tough to turn hard.
so its a balance of many factors.
I do not think the big missiles of S300-400 which fly @ mach5 can turn hard.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
True GD.Singha wrote:hardly any plane flies above mach2 and in releasing A2G munitions, I think most are high subsonic only, a few like Mig25 could release a nuclear bomb from supersonic. in the akash is defending a 25km , the a/c if planning an attack with A2G will mostly be subsonic...
high speed is useful in long range missiles that have to chase or otherwise cover a long distance to intended target. it matters less as the missiles range gets smaller and smaller. high speed for a big missile also makes it tough to turn hard.
so its a balance of many factors.
A few days ago I thought that I should try and use unkal Googal to become more well informed than the Aero gurus here and consulted Wiki to read about "Area Rule" a phrase that the gurus throw around casually and make me feel inferior. What was interesting was that that area rule business apparently works best in the mach 0.8 to 1.2 regime. People are so worried about that 0.8 to 1.2 because mach 0.8 to 1 itself has been sort of barrier with all combat up to 2011 taking place below Mach 1. Supercruise is the one thing that could break this barrier for the future.
Unkil is well on course in developing aircraft that will supercruise and will drop unpowered (glide bomb) munitions like the JSOW at stand off distances of 100 km. A stealthy aircraft, supercruising in and dropping an unpowered stealthy PGM like a JSOW from 100 Km will put everything valuable within a range of 100 km from the Indian border at risk assuming that attacking aircraft can be engaged WVR once they are over Indian territory.
As you said earlier - offence is the best defence here and anything within 300 km of the Indian border should currently be at risk from Indian attack. Hopefully this will get better with time.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Well Unkil needs to be brought under the 'chatra-chaya' of our nukes it will automatically fall in line. IRAQ, Afghanistan and Libya happened because they did not have any nukes and had it not been for noDongs NoKo would have been sent back to stone age too.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
Austin the range of the missile depends on target aspect and target speed or closure speed to be more specific. Whether target is supersonic or subsonic is irrelevant here but what is relevant is whether it is approaching the SAM or receding away! A supersonic aircraft is a good intercept target if it's approaching but a difficult one if it's receding. In short, One needs positive closure velocity in order to have a successful intercept and target aspect is more important here than sheer speed of the aircraft.Austin wrote:Effective range can vary depending on the target it is trying to intercept and weather its receding or approaching , whether its subsonic or supersonic one , the energy spend in intercepting a maneuvering supersonic target would vary compared to flat subsonic cruise missile approaching the area guarded by battery.neerajb wrote:The range mentioned is not ballistic range but effective range for practical intercepts. Did some googling and this is what I found
Supersonic aircrafts don't pull 9gs but fly level and straight. In fact I have seen test footage of F-16 which went into departure by mild turn maneuvers. Even if we assume a rafale/EF to be doing 9gs at mach 1, the turn diameter comes out to be 2.5 kms approx which IMO is not difficult for a mach 2.5 missile capable of pulling 15gs at the extreme of its flight envelope owing to it's all the way powered flight.
Despite the dual thrust motors, modern missiles are not powered throughout the flight because of practical limitations of weight and size and the speed v/s distance graph on the previous page illustrates how deceptive those high mach numbers of other missiles are.
IMHO that 27 km range is effective range of Akash at which it can intercept an approaching high subsonic target doing maneuvers practically possible at that speed. More about Akash testing here :
http://akashsam.com/about.htmUser trials to verify the consistency in performance of the total weapon system against low flying near range target, long range high altitude target, crossing and approaching target and ripple firing of two missiles from the same launcher against a low altitude receding target were conducted at ITR, Chandipur during Dec 2007. Akash missile successfully intercepted nine targets in successive launches. Fifth and last trial successfully took place at 2.15pm on 21st Dec at Chandipur on sea in which the Akash missile destroyed an Unmanned Air Vehicle (Lakshya) which was flying a path simulating an air attack.
On careful reading one can notice that nowhere they have mentioned absolute speed of the target but aspect, range, closure velocity and altitude which are the determinative performance parameters for a SAM.
Cheers....
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
The speed issue with the Akash is not as much a issue as it seems as it is powered throughout its flight as opposed to a launch boost of Mach 4 and glide for the next 3/4 to max range - so the time to max range may well be less than most other SAM's, this is why its such a heavy missile for its range class.
Also, the next version of the Akash, will have minimal modifications and a bigger booster to lift its top speed, and range extended to over 40 KM. It may even be possible to upgrade current models by changing the booster. Not sure the current launcher will work with the extra load.
Also, the next version of the Akash, will have minimal modifications and a bigger booster to lift its top speed, and range extended to over 40 KM. It may even be possible to upgrade current models by changing the booster. Not sure the current launcher will work with the extra load.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
I completely agree with you on this point , another point if I could add is the closing or receding target should be in the LOS of Rajendra MFR.neerajb wrote:Austin the range of the missile depends on target aspect and target speed or closure speed to be more specific. Whether target is supersonic or subsonic is irrelevant here but what is relevant is whether it is approaching the SAM or receding away! A supersonic aircraft is a good intercept target if it's approaching but a difficult one if it's receding. In short, One needs positive closure velocity in order to have a successful intercept and target aspect is more important here than sheer speed of the aircraft.
Which is true ,except the fact that a Rafale/EF can do much more then turn , they will use its supersonic kinetic energy besides Jamming , Chaff to blind the radar , needless to mention they can use HARM as well.Supersonic aircrafts don't pull 9gs but fly level and straight. In fact I have seen test footage of F-16 which went into departure by mild turn maneuvers. Even if we assume a rafale/EF to be doing 9gs at mach 1, the turn diameter comes out to be 2.5 kms approx which IMO is not difficult for a mach 2.5 missile capable of pulling 15gs at the extreme of its flight envelope owing to it's all the way powered flight.
Except the fact no missile designers has ever touched ramjet for SAM since 60's when they last designed the SA-6 , even experience design house like soviet moved to solid propulsion for all future missile and certainly west were not keen on ramjet use , should give you a good idea that coasting is not a big disadvantage as its made out to be , needless to say further development by DRDO does not use ramjet.Despite the dual thrust motors, modern missiles are not powered throughout the flight because of practical limitations of weight and size and the speed v/s distance graph on the previous page illustrates how deceptive those high mach numbers of other missiles are.
The ramjet for Akash was chosen in early 80's when we had a good exposure to SA-6 and the entire Akash project was suppose to get operationalise by mid 90's , DRDO refined it further by using modern PESA and digitise the whole thing , Akash never had much problem with its missile than the other stuff that kept changing and Army/IAF changed its goal post in late 90 and 2000 with respect to its group configuration , the ramjet tech for akash was perfected in mid early 90's but the other aspect were moving goal post and delayed every thing , not to mention technology challenges as no outside help was taken for this project.
Most of the Akash test including the final user trial was done with Lakshya and its tow body essentially a subsonic target , I have never come across any news that talks of any thing other then lakshya target and my personal conversation with DRDO folks have mentioned it lakshya.User trials to verify the consistency in performance of the total weapon system against low flying near range target, long range high altitude target, crossing and approaching target and ripple firing of two missiles from the same launcher against a low altitude receding target were conducted at ITR, Chandipur during Dec 2007. Akash missile successfully intercepted nine targets in successive launches. Fifth and last trial successfully took place at 2.15pm on 21st Dec at Chandipur on sea in which the Akash missile destroyed an Unmanned Air Vehicle (Lakshya) which was flying a path simulating an air attack.
http://akashsam.com/about.htm
On careful reading one can notice that nowhere they have mentioned absolute speed of the target but aspect, range, closure velocity and altitude which are the determinative performance parameters for a SAM.
Cheers....
But a supersonic target should not be a problem , they can use the SA-3 missile as supersonic target drone.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
India did purchase some Galileo Avionica Mirach 100/5 target drones back in 2007 for weapon testing. However, it is not certain whether any were used for Akash's trials. But it would indicate that some would probably have been used for the trials as those extensive Akash trials happened in late 2007.Austin wrote:...Most of the Akash test including the final user trial was done with Lakshya and its tow body essentially a subsonic target , I have never come across any news that talks of any thing other then lakshya target and my personal conversation with DRDO folks have mentioned it lakshya.User trials to verify the consistency in performance of the total weapon system against low flying near range target, long range high altitude target, crossing and approaching target and ripple firing of two missiles from the same launcher against a low altitude receding target were conducted at ITR, Chandipur during Dec 2007. Akash missile successfully intercepted nine targets in successive launches. Fifth and last trial successfully took place at 2.15pm on 21st Dec at Chandipur on sea in which the Akash missile destroyed an Unmanned Air Vehicle (Lakshya) which was flying a path simulating an air attack.
http://akashsam.com/about.htm
On careful reading one can notice that nowhere they have mentioned absolute speed of the target but aspect, range, closure velocity and altitude which are the determinative performance parameters for a SAM.
Cheers....
...
India places service contract for Galileo Avionica Mirach 100/5 target drones
DATE:26/03/07
Selex subsiduary Galileo Avionica has signed an undisclosed value service contract with the Indian Ministry of Defence to provide target drone services for a one year.
The award is based on the Galileo Avionica Mirach 100/5 series target drone with the company to conduct 20 presentations across the service period. The company says that the flights will be used to support Indian weapon systems qualification tests.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
I think this will give an idea of what parameters (max and min) Akash was tested for based on the performance parameters of the Mirach 100/5 drone.
SELEX GALILEO - MIRACH 100/5 INTEGRATED AERIAL TARGET SYSTEM
SELEX GALILEO - MIRACH 100/5 INTEGRATED AERIAL TARGET SYSTEM
Code: Select all
MAIN FEATURES
-------------------------
• State of the art High Subsonic Aerial Target System;
• Routinely used by major European Armed Forces;
• NATO Certified Mission Reliability >98%;
• Lowest Overall Life Cycle Costs;
• Simulates most present-day threats in terms of kinematics and signatures, including: Sea Skimming ASM, Fighters and strike aircrafts, Cruise missiles, Fast UAVs;
• Ground or Sea Recovery with respectively 1 or 3 hours Turn Around Time;
• Customized, turn-key configurations.
Performances (ISA conditions)
-------------------------------------
Endurance: 90’
Max speed: Mach 0,85
Min altitude: 3m
Max altitude: 12.500 m
Load factor: Instantaneous: 8g
sustained: 6g
Max payload: > 60 Kg
Payloads
----------------
Active and passive RCS augmenters
IR augmenters
IR and chaff dispenser (IRCM/A and IRCM/M)
2 Towed body systems (IR, active/passive RF Tow targets)
2 Air launched autonomous expendable sub-targets (Locusta)
Missile seeker head simulators (eg. AN DPT-1)
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
India's ABM test: ASAT capability or paper tiger ? - Article in Space Review
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion
It is not clear form the article what is the conclusion of the author. Is it that Indian ASAT is a paper Tiger or it is the real deal.
Politics of a situation however compelling dont give a complete answer to the question. One can draw the conclusion based on the past Indian performance WRT, stratagic capabilities that ASAT is the real deal. But the author based on my reading of the article seems to cmpletely discounts it.
JMT
Politics of a situation however compelling dont give a complete answer to the question. One can draw the conclusion based on the past Indian performance WRT, stratagic capabilities that ASAT is the real deal. But the author based on my reading of the article seems to cmpletely discounts it.
JMT