Bharat Rakshak

Aditya_V,

Thanks, will check it out. Certainly interesting if it can do that.

Kit/RK,

Both of you seem to be talking about AAMs. I am looking for an Anti-AAM. A missile that can intercept an AAM. Is there one out there? TIA.

...

Kit/RK,

Both of you seem to be talking about AAMs. I am looking for an Anti-AAM. A missile that can intercept an AAM. Is there one out there? TIA.

By definition, an anti-AAM is itself an AAM.
No other kind of missile will likely ever be close enough to intercept an AAM during air combat.

Illustrative examples are the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF, the latter armed in an air superiority configuration with two, the former with up to six AIM-120s [3]. Assuming the Flanker driver does not exploit his superior missile kinematic range and shoot first - an optimistic assumption - then the best case kill probability for the AIM-120 shooter firing two to four rounds is better than 90 percent. However, if we assume that hostile jamming and manoeuvre degrade the kill probability to around 50 percent - a reasonably optimistic statistical baseline here - then the total kill probability for a two round salvo is optimistically around 75 percent, and for a four round salvo over 90 percent. Arguably good odds for the four round salvo, only if the missile kill probability sits at 50 percent, but the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF will have expended all or most of its warload of AIM-120s and be unable to continue in BVR combat. In a "many versus many" engagement, the low speed of both types leaves them unable to disengage and will see both types subsequently killed by another Flanker.

This best case "many versus many" engagement scenario sees the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF being traded one for one with Su-30MK/Su-35BM Flankers in BVR combat, which is the general assumption made for WVR combat between like opponents, and representative of many historical attrition air campaign statistics. To achieve this best case "many versus many" outcome of trading F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF one for one, we have stacked a series of assumptions against the Flanker - dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a missile kinematic range advantage, dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a firepower advantage, Russian BVR missile seekers no better than the AIM-120, and Russian DRFM monopulse jammers achieving a less than 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability [4].

A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics.

Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.

For the third time in five days, India today test-fired two surface-to-air anti-aircraft 'Akash' missiles from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur near here, achieving success in one while the data of the second trial was being analysed.

the pitch up maybe in case of a miss in the tail chase engagement of an inbound else it could crash right into the protected target

Any ideas on the 60kg warhead of the Akash. It could make a potent ground attack PGM if packaged properly.

Is it same as SA-6 or something new from DRDO?

Warheads



Different types of warheads have been developed for the missiles under Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. In order to defeat diversified ground targets ranging from soft targets like personnel in open to hard targets like, runway, industrial complexes and built up areas, four different types of warheads have been designed and developed for Prithvi missile. The pre-fragmented warhead is designed to neutralise soft targets. The submunition warhead incorporating Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Bomblet is effective against AFVs in the top attack mode besides being effective against personnel up to a distance of about 10 m around the point of burst of each bomblet while the submunition incendiary warhead is effective against inflammable targets. The Runway Denial Penetrating Submunition warhead is designed and developed to neutralise hard targets like runways, administration and industrial complexes and marshalling yards. Prithvi missile, both Army and Air Force versions have been introduced into the Services. The design of the warheads involved development of new technologies and sophisticated mathematical models (software developed based on extensive basic research carried out to design and predict the performance of warheads under various combat conditions).

Application of in-house developed software and sophisticated CAD tools have led to optimal design of various subsystems of the warheads. The DPIC bomblet, viz., antitank-cum-anti- personnel bomblet developed for Prithvi missile, has been made universal in design and is being used for the cargo shells, bombs and rocket systems. The warhead systems designed for Trishul and Akash missiles, are of pre-fragmented type and are meant to defeat aerial targets. Tandem warhead for Nag based on shaped charge technology for use against ERA equipped modern MBT has been developed.

The warhead systems designed and developed will enable the Armed Forces to have totally indigenous strategic weapon systems.

Bangalore: Missile minds in India are an excited lot after monitoring the developments of Russia's 'secret' test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on May 23. While information on the test and its results are in short supply, sources with India's Missile Complex in Hyderabad seems to have made merry of what ever tit-bit features that have trickled in from Russia's Plesetsk range. Topping the eye-catching item numbers are: the missile's lesser radar cross section (RCS) features, multiple warhead capabilities and the use of a new fuel, that possibly makes the propulsion phase faster. The excitement of Indian scientists can be justified from the fact that many of the new features tested on the Russian missile are the the ones being planned for future versions of Agni series.
Russian news agencies have reported over the week that the testing of the yet-to-be-named weapon is Russia's answer to NATO's missile defence shield (European).

The timing of the test with many first-time-embedded features came only days after NATO declared that their missile defence shield attained operational status. “We too have a very active Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme running, including a counter measure for BMD. It is one of our key activities and we are seeing reports from Russia with interest,” Avinash Chander, Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems), Defence Reserach and Development Organisation (DRDO), told Express.


He said some of the features that is reported to have tested are areas DRDO have already set its sight on. “The idea is to reduce the time during the cruise phase. How to reduce RCS and IR (infrared) signatures? What are the active counter measures in terms of the capabilities to mauouvere? These are all common interest areas for missile scientists world over,” Avinash said. To a specific question on the new features of Agni-V future versions, he said: “We are now preparing the canister-launch-system for Agni-V.”

The Russian missile hit the designated target after cruising 6,000 km, carrying dummy warheads. On the new fuel the missile reportedly used, sources in the Missile Complex said: “This could provide higher acceleration and enable high thrust-weight ratio. In Agni-V, we used a solid booster with HTPB (Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene) propellant during the rocket's active stage of trajectory.”

On the Russian missile's capability to launch separate warheads with independent flightpath – thereby ducking incoming threats, sources said that India too would have similar features in days ahead. “Agni-VI is a definite possibility, though we haven't designed the vehicle yet. With many developed nations moving towards mastering new maneuvering skills for their missiles, we are confident of meeting our targets too. The idea of multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV) and manoeuvring re-entry vehicles (MaRV) are on our active radar,” sources said.

Hardly any reason to worry there , every SAM has a certain pk value for certain class of targets and even in those certain missile will fail for any number of reasons , wonder when did a sam failure during trials or even combat ever made news

Any ideas on the 60kg warhead of the Akash. It could make a potent ground attack PGM if packaged properly.

Is it same as SA-6 or something new from DRDO?

what is the black slot up the side of warheads for? does it have a recessed lever which can be slid into various positions to set some fuse option?

are there any ICBMs ignited from 50k ft above dropped from An or 747 platform? along with the triad option, this would add a force multiplier for NFU strategy.

yes.. it is feasible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96A0wb1Ov9k