Bharat Rakshak

but that would need good sustained supersonic endurance from a small SAM going after a potentially big missile.
missiles pretty much all of them have no RWR or detector to know they are being painted by ground based or SAM nose radar , so evasive action would not be situational but programmed manouvers. with any luck it wont jink at crucial moment.

key thing is early warning and fast missile to be in right place at right time. the hard DASS guided manouvering a manned fighter will do to break off contact wont be a issue with missiles.

Tail chase sequences are no no for intercepting missiles that kind of stuff only happens in movies (remember the sequence from behind enemy lines, and then we make fun of Bollywood movies )

Most of the interceptors out there are powered by solid fuel i.e. they engage the target when the last stage is already coasting there is no time for all that tail chasing and hugging.

the current Akash looks perfectly adequate for 95% of current target set and weaponry release modes(A2G munitions will be released at subsonic speeds by manned platform). being ramjet it is powered for a longer time and will give manned fighters a hard chase. its big 60KG warhead will ensure even a detonation 20m away will still perforate and damage anything in a cloud of shrapnel. 60kg of RDX will take apart a typical tech park building methinks with its flimsy internal walls and cubes.

60 Kg is the total warhead weight, It won't have more than 20-25 Kgs of explosive.

what would be the remainder - ball bearings and casing?

Explosives surrounded by tungsten alloy cubes and casing.

^^^^^
You know, of all the applications for explosives, arguably a ground-to-air missile system like the AKASH is where BANG really matters.

This is where you'd use ICL-20 instead of RDX (which is PETN at 70-85%).

I remember reading on the BRF newsfeed that HEMRL (I think that's the acronym) had synthesized CL-20, and was going to start producing it with the "I" prefix (for "India").

>>>>> Just did some Googling and found this.......

DRDO lab develops powerful explosive "CL-20" (MUST-READ ARTICLE on warhead explosives development)
http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-lab-d ... /1/10.html

^^^
This article also indicates that RDX is not used in the Indian armoury on warheads.

Directional warhead should increase lethality with smaller explosive weights as well. Might be good if used.

Even in land attack profile Brahmos performs manuveurs the Brahmos video clearly states' that. Also the incident involving A-10 or whatever target SA-2 was engaging (other reports state it was missile no one knows) shows the folly using a command guided against low flying target.


That is incorrect akash is actually burning a solid propellant powder (not a liquid fueled missile like Brahmos) and the motors' burn time is around 20 seconds about the same as solid fueled missile of that range, after which the missile simply coasts.

How many maneuvers do you think Brahmos would be undertaking in its flight? And what would be the acuteness of those maneuvers. I know for sure that fighter planes when flying supersonic don't undertake more than 12 (may be 15) degrees AoA and <5Gs. There is just too much momentum when flying at that speeds to make any sharp changes in direction.


I remember reading reports where Dr. Prahlada categorically said that it is powered through its entire flight.
link


The DRDO page on Akash also says the same.


We should probably read this.

Is there any Indian involvement or contribution to the liquid propulsion system of Brahmos, mentioned a few postings above? It is known that there is a significant Indian imprint on the avionics and software of Brahmos.

Carlo Kopp has detail breakdown of SA-6 ramjet engine. Just pointing out that the burn duration of ramjet engine is about the same as solid fueled missile like 9m38 (burn time of around 15-20 seconds as well and much higher speed). So even the latter can reach the target while the booster is still active. But if engagement runs longer than 20 secs it will have to coast.

Why should we equate Akash's propulsion to SA-6 just because they both use solid Ramjet?

Akash uses a different propellant from HEMRL. link


Our BR page gives simlar details about Akash's propulsion system

Forgetting about the boost phase, at 2.5 Mach and 30 seconds, Akash would have covered 25.5 kms. That is entire range of the missile (as the folks from DRDO have been telling us).

Actually, the maneuvering limits of fighter aircraft are dictated by the limits of human endurance. More than so many Gs and it doesn't matter if the airframe can pull it off if the pilot is blacked-out and smooshed-up against the inside of his helmet.

The Akash site says it can pull 15 Gs, and I believe it, because there's no pilot on board. That's why planes outmaneuvering missiles is tricky business, particularly at close range.

It's really not about "momentum", it's about the pilot's cerebral bloodflow.

I understand, but:

At 15 Gs and 3000 kmph, the radius of the turn is 6 times greater and the angular velocity (rate of change of direction) is 0.73 times of the angular velocity of a vehicle pulling 5Gs at 720 kmph.

At 15 Gs and 3000 kmph, the radius of the turn is 10 times greater and the angular velocity (rate of change of direction) is 0.4 times of the angular velocity of a vehicle pulling 9Gs at 720 kmph.

And we know that planes and pilots in them can be pulling 9Gs and more if need be .

Probly a piss-poor comparison but here are some questions -

What is more difficult to intercept?

a) Subsonic cruise missile with greater maneuverability ? OR
b) Supersonic cruise missile with less maneuverability?

Is this akin to

a) Bug that moves slow but is all over the place ala mosquito?
b) Bug that moves super-fast ala wasp?

Once in motion I think the latter alternative is much more difficult to intercept. Again, you got to see it to kill it, and the later you see it the less your chances.

CM Sahab, I am sorry but I don't think it is a right comparison. It is an oversimplification and not to scale. The 3D CAR radar has a range of upto 150 km. Suppose, it picks up a Brahmos class missile at 100 kms, it will still provide the Akash system 100 seconds to react. Even after the target is passed on to the BLR, there is 60 more secs. The maximum flight time of the Akash missile is about 40 secs. So there is atleast 20 seconds to react. The reaction time required for the Akash system is 15 secs. So, 'not visible' is not the case here.

The primary questions are:

1. How quickly can I identify the target?
2. How much time do I have to react?
3. How to manage countermeasures adopted?

It is obvious, that a plane, a subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic cruise missile offer different levels of challenges for the above 3 questions. My feeling is that a subsonic cruise missile would be the easiest to defeat as it does not have the variety and non-determinism of evasive measures that a piloted plane can take or the small reaction time that a Brahmos class cruise missile provides.

Does not matter what it is.

The question is about how good are you at predicting such movements. IF you can predict where they will be at a given oint in time, you win. Else ................ better to breed jihadies.

Don't know if it belongs here

Javelin Sale To India On Track


300 launchers?
8000 missiles?
Are the numbers correct?
27 missiles per launcher?
Isn't the launcher just the sighting/targeting unit attached to the disposable missile container or is it a bi/tri-pod based one?

I believe it comes in sealed tube but the optics unit is detachable..and hence reused. a peculiar padmasana type yogic posture is needed to launch it.

Would imagine that around 900 would be used for training, assuming three per launcher. ??????

That is still 25 missiles per launcher.
If the Launcher is not functionable, all the missiles carried by the unit will be a waste. AFAIK, 3-6 missiles per launcher are usually seen. They will be distributed among the section or platoon.

Related??

The other international orders of Javelin also have one to six proportion of launchers and missiles.

Link
But One launcher for 25 missiles is little ludicrous.
Either the numbers are wrong or signify some other type of launcher.

But wouldn't some of these missiles be reserves/backups?

I think these are direct buy 8000 and 300 from the US. I am sure we will have a much larger order of around 30000 built in india under licence with many more launchers.

You are right. I would think 600 launchers is more likely for 8,000 missiles.

The IA has around 300+ battalions. Typical battalion has an ATGM company with 2 launchers and x number of missiles. So 600 launchers would be more plausible. This would mean around 13 Javelins per launcher or 26 Javelins per ATGM company.

If a ATGM company is made of two 4-man section, each section could be divided into 1 man carrying launcher and 3 men carrying 2 missiles each -- a total of 6 missiles and 1 launcher per section. With two sections deployed, it would mean 12 missiles and 2 launchers in the field with another 12 missiles in reserves. There would need to be some reserves for the launchers as well.

Those numbers might make more sense if deployment plans call for extensive pre-positioning of missiles (which are fairly rugged), versus the high portability and high maintenance requirements of the optical kit CLU (Control Launch Units). These things have cooling requirements, and then there's the field diagnostic kits and whatnot. The missiles don't really need maintenance, whereas that other kit does. (Better to carry that.)

If deployment plans call for caches of these missiles on various mountain passes (where the natural choke-points make it truly decisive in a defensive role), these numbers make perfect sense (because moving across vallies is difficult). Not only are the missiles the heavier component, the explosive nature of the missiles pose their own handling hazards.

Pre-positioning dispersed caches of missiles, and therefore needing a high ratio of missiles / CLUs, seems to be the case.

Either that, or India plans to manufacture their own CLUs and mate them with the missiles.

A bit of Googling reveals multiple mentions of licensed manufacture and numbers from 44,000 to 60,000 of these missiles (although, I am unclear if this is the "sanctioned strength", the "mandated strength" or however else these guys count); and whether these counts pertain to a specific missile or the overall ATGM inventory (which include large numbers of MILAN and KONKURS that would seem better suited to the 'Western Sector'.

Something like the Javelin in a mountainous area, is decisive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

BUT: Nothing is perfect........ Javelin "EPIC FAIL"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNLqFHH-oQ

^^^

Most likely, these new 8,000 Javelins will replace an equivalent number of older Milan 2s in service. There are supposed to be 30,000 Milan 2 units built over the last 20 years by BDL and another 4,100 Milan 2T units to be built. If Javelins become the de-facto man-portable ATGM, then one could make a guess that around 35,000 (8,000 direct and 27,000 license built) would be produced over time.

Did US State Dept cut down the no of launchers by half? That would definitely impact the cold launch by reducing the no of units that can swing into action simultaneously. Reducing the no of total missiles will reduce persistence and will not be effective enough in "managing tension" as IA has other options like milan, konkur etc to persue once javlin stocks are over in breaking though the door. Sounds plausible or am i seeing a conspiracy theory where none exists?

You're number of launchers per battalion is off the mark. The number should be around 8 Missile Launchers per Battalion with 1+5 Missiles per launchers.

wondering what will be the price of Javelins. wouldn't non western equivalent be economical.
whats so high tech about javelins. why not 9M133 Kornets.
As far as i remember. they are lethal and have record of penetrating merkava's armour.

Looks like you can buy any number of missiles as you want but only limited number of launchers! That way TSP and US business guys will be happy.

kornet is a heavy ATGM in nag class - not man portable.

for some reason Milan2T is considered passe and contest was between Spike and Javelin. the swedish bill2 is also in same category.

unlike the lofted top attack path of javelin (and Nag), the Bill2 flies directly and overflies the target, releasing a copper penetrator from the vertical direction for top attack
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... /bof10.jpg

Thanks for the correction.

• ~2,800 ATGM launchers -> 350 battalions x 8 launchers
• ~16,800 ATGM missiles -> 350 battalions x 8 launchers x 6 missiles [48 ATGM missiles per battalion]
• xx -> Plus, launcher and missile reserves

So for 8,000 Javelin missiles, around 1,400 launchers would be required. If these 8,000 missiles are equally divided amongst 350 battalions, each battalion would end up with around 24 missiles and 4 launchers. The other half would still use Milans.

Ramana might be spot on. The "Javelin back on track" post-Panetta-visit could be a half-truth.

So what was the original IA hoped for order for the Javelins? How many birds and how many launchers? We now know its setteld at 8000 missiles and 300 launchers. And this was after it was 'pared down'.

with paltry 300 launchers only our SF units, para brigade and a couple of mountain brigades might get some. one can forget about mass deployment to replace the 1000s of Milan2 launchers with the infantry.

Lets hope even these small numbers are not restricted to the Chinese theatre.

But has the Javelin been tested along with rival missiles? How was it evaluated?

Lets hope this a gap filler with a future Nag with lesser propelant and reduced range can match the 25kg of the Javelin.

The original desire by IA is unknown. Rajat Pandit claimed that the IA was deficient by about 40K ATGMs and ended up ordering 4K+ Milans etc. So, I'd assume a 8-10K order for Javelins would be very much on the cards