Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 29 Nov 2011 15:08

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.

In this paper, we give a new procedure for SAR/ISAR imaging. We use an autofocusing technique to image a ship target on sea or an aircraft in flight by processing real radar data based on SAR/ISAR. The ship imaging experiment is a first for China. The result is satisfactory. The method and the resulting images are given

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Nov 2011 17:10

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....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Nov 2011 17:56

Singha wrote: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

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.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Nov 2011 18:01

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

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Nov 2011 18:45

Lalmohan wrote: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

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Nov 2011 19:01

sum wrote:The entire A-IV team pic in THE WEEK. The print edition has the A-IV also shown in the background pretty close up:

Reign of fire

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

“With Agni 4, we have embarked on a new quantum of technology. And with Agni 5, we will perfect the sleeker systems,” says Chander. [So Perfected systems for Agni 5!]

Diplomats at the external affairs ministry, too, say the optical gyroscope of Agni 4 has become a “gamechanger” in the global strategic environment.[So can it be taken that Agni 4 is influencing foreign as well as deterrence policy? ]

Apart from RLG, what sets apart Agni 4 and Agni 5 are their higher avionics and their ability to do real-time estimation (on-board improvisation of performance of the missile).

Over the years, Agni missiles have become ‘fat-less'. “Past Agni missiles needed a large number of auxiliaries,” says Tessy. “Our challenge at hand was to reduce the operational manpower to just one or two officers, whose sole duty will be to launch the missile from a well-placed location once the coded orders were given. We reduced the number of auxiliaries, and as a result, the auxiliaries have become programmes on board the ICBM.” [Very important progress as to that of western standards]

Scientists at DRDO are glad that the news of the coming launch of Agni 5 has added to the morale of Indian soldiers. “Our weapons provide cutting edge to the Indian soldier. If soldiers feel confident about our product then that is the biggest reward for us,” says a scientist. [So much message that Agni 4 is user friendly]

According to DRDO sources, the sleek, powerful Agni missiles, combined with the strength of the armed forces, will translate to a ‘do-not-mess-with-India' message.

V.K. Saraswat, scientific adviser to the defence minister, says the new age missiles will help India put its rivals on notice so that its vital assets are not targeted in the future.

“Older, big powers of the world were dependent upon energy and military might. India's powerful status comes from its economic might because of its strengths in IT and manufacturing. Future warfare might target IT and other relevant sectors of Indian economy,” says Saraswat. “In the coming days, DRDO will turn the national cyber security infrastructure and encryption process totally impregnable,” he said. [Cyber Security is coming up in a big way]

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2011 19:38

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.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 29 Nov 2011 20:43

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.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Nov 2011 00:16

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.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 00:29

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.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Nov 2011 02:36

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.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Nov 2011 02:42

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.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 02:59

means demated is out

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

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2011 03:04

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 03:14

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.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Nov 2011 03:16

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

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.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 03:26

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

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 30 Nov 2011 03:27

SaiK wrote:I used to say narayana narayna! now I chant shiva shiva!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 Nov 2011 08:22

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

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Nov 2011 09:32

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.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Nov 2011 10:09

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.

“Megaton warheads were used when accuracies were low. Now we talk of (accuracy of) a few hundred metres. That allows a smaller warhead, perhaps 150-250 kilotons, to cause substantial damage. We don’t want to cause wanton damage (with megaton warheads),” says 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.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Nov 2011 10:16

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Nov 2011 11:28

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.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 11:44

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Nov 2011 11:56

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 !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2011 12:29

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.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 30 Nov 2011 13:58

nukavarapu wrote:
Pranav wrote: But how do you simulate air flowing at Mach 7?
Its called Hypersonic Wind Tunnel. I guess they have one in Hyderabad, and IIRC they built it using Israeli Tech, back in the day when DRDO started with the HSTDV wind tunnel testing.

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.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 30 Nov 2011 14:06

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).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Nov 2011 16:05

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

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

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Nov 2011 21:41

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

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 30 Nov 2011 22:01

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?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Nov 2011 22:25

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.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2011 02:52

Agni I launch on Dec 1st

Practice launch of Agni-I today
T. S. Subramanian

Agni-I missile will be fired from the Wheeler Island off the Odisha coast on Thursday morning in a “practice-launch” to test the Army's readiness to use it.

The Army's Strategic Forces Command, tasked with handling missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, will fire Agni-I from a specially designed truck.

The missile can carry a one-tonne nuclear warhead, but during the test, it will be fitted with a dummy payload. The missile had been inducted into the Army. Agni-II and Agni-III have also been deployed with the Army.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) developed Agni-I to bridge the gap between Prithvi, which has a range of 250 km, and Agni-II, which can strike targets 2,500 km away. Defence specialists say Agni-I, with a range of 700 km, is Pakistan-specific, capable of covering the entire western range.

It was first launched on January 25, 2002 and since then, several launches had taken place. The missile to be launched on Thursday is the same as those used previously. “There is no change in the configuration or the engine's power. Everything is ditto,” a DRDO missile engineer said.

The 15-metre tall, 12-tonne, single-stage missile is powered by solid propellants. It reaches an altitude of more than 300 km before re-entering the atmosphere. Its diameter is one metre. The missile is a scaled-down version of Agni-II, which has two stages. Agni-II's first stage was re-configured to become Agni-I.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Dec 2011 08:47

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

DRDO failure forces buying of costly missiles

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2011 09:30

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.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Dec 2011 09:39

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.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2011 11:11

chackojoseph wrote: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.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Dec 2011 11:22

srai wrote: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.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Dec 2011 11:39

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.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 01 Dec 2011 12:05

^^javelin is a good weapon but its really costly. It will cost almost as same as a shitty al-zerara tank in Paki army.

Over the years we kept on inducting not-so-reliable SRMBs and never waited for Agni V.

Answer to self reliance in India is technology denial from outside. Unless there is no urge to build something we will keep on buying from outside.