Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 25 May 2013 09:29

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 13:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 13:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 8449
Location: Ya kundendu tushar haar dhavala ..
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 ) :mrgreen:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 13:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 15:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 773
Singha wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 15:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
what would be the remainder - ball bearings and casing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 16:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 773
Explosives surrounded by tungsten alloy cubes and casing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 21:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Posts: 499
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
^^^^^
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 22:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 1454
Location: NullPointerException
Directional warhead should increase lethality with smaller explosive weights as well. Might be good if used.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 22:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 768
negi wrote:
Sir all of the above were essentially designed as AShM, out there in the sea you can carry out pre-programmed movements in the terminal phase something which cannot happen in an Urban environment at least not at a height below high rise structures, you raised the point about an engagement scenario in an urban area where an incoming bogey might break Radar lock because it might get behind a building based on Gulf war incident involving a A-10 which in the first place is rather inappropriate, for '1' A-10 is far more slower than a supersonic missile, '2' There is human element involved with A-10 where pilot is basically 'responding' to a Radar lock by trying to disengage and trying to get a building between him and the Radar this is something which a supersonic missile is not capable of it's evasive maneuvers are pre-programmed and even if it has such intelligence it cannot pull it off at a height below high rise buildings at Mach 2.5+.

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.

Quote:
Akash's top speed might be just around Mach 2.5 but catch is unlike solid propelled missiles it is powered throughout it's flight envelope , moreover typical engagement will be head on or from the side not tail chase like in case of highly maneuvering targets that can choose to disengage when painted.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 23:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2227
John wrote:
Even in land attack profile Brahmos performs manuveurs the Brahmos video clearly states' that.

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.
John wrote:
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.


I remember reading reports where Dr. Prahlada categorically said that it is powered through its entire flight.
link
Quote:
Mr. Prahlada said Akash had three unique features. First, it can engage multiple targets. A single battery can simultaneously engage four targets. Second, by using ram-jet propulsion, it thrusts all the way till it meets the target. "The speed will never drop. So you are able to maintain superiority over the target. Even the Patriot missile does not have ram-jet propulsion. The Patriot missile, after its boost phase, keeps decelerating but Akash does not decelerate," he said.


The DRDO page on Akash also says the same.
Quote:
Its integral Ram Rocket propulsion provides all the way thrusting to a range of 25-30 km with a velocity of 600-700m/s from 1.5 km onwards. The Ram jet system enables powered intercept, high maneuverability, much higher terminal velocities, high average speed, lesser reaction time, lower flight time and better engagements of receeder targets vis-à-vis boost coast type of missiles. It also has wider no escape zones.


We should probably read this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2012 23:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Posts: 835
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 00:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 768
indranilroy wrote:
We should probably read this.


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.

Quote:
The aft fuselage contains the annular solid propellant first stage booster, with a launch mass of ~172 kg and a length of 1.7 metres, using VIK-2 propellant. The igniter initiates a burn along the central 5.4 cm dia. cavity. The engine has burn duration of about 3 to 6 seconds and accelerates the missile from 0 to ~ Mach 1.5. Once the booster has burned out, it becomes the combustion chamber / nozzle for the solid propellant rocket ramjet. Four symmetrically placed air inlets feed into this chamber. Frangible fibreglass covers are used to prevent air ingestion prior to sustainer ignition.

The centre fuselage contains the gas generator fuel charge for the solid propellant ramjet operation. The 9D16K sustainer solid gas generator charge comprising 67 kg of LK-6TM reducing propellant is ignited and the hot gas discharge vents into the combustion chamber, where it is mixed with air to burn and generate sustainer thrust. Burn duration is ~20 seconds, during which the missile accelerates to a peak velocity of ~2.8 Mach. Russian sources claim that the sustainer cannot be throttled and as a result this limits choices in missile trajectories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 02:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2227
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
Quote:
INTEGRAL RAM ROCKET (IRR) PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Fuel-efficient air breathing propulsion system was developed exclusively for Project Akash. IRR propulsion system provides powered range right up to target intercept enabling high maneuverability and tail chase capability unlike solid rockets.

Following subsystems were developed ab initio for realizing IRR propulsion system.
- Light weight, high pressure rocket motors using indigenous maraging steel, an indigenous high strength alloy steel.
- Secondary chamber liner / thermal protection system using carbon phenolic fiber.
- Composite propellant booster grain in free standing configuration.
- A special grain with variable burn rates was developed and productionised at OF, Itarsi which is also specific to Akash & application.
- Air intakes and caps are designed for ramjet application.

The IRR propulsion system is first in the country & it has potential application for long range air launched missile systems for air-to-air and air-to ground role. Not many countries have worked in the complex area of ramjet propulsion


Our BR page gives simlar details about Akash's propulsion system
Quote:
The Akash uses an integral ramjet rocket propulsion system to give a low-volume, low-weight (700 kg launch weight) missile configuration, and has a low reaction time - from detection to missile launch - of 15 seconds. This allows the missile to carry a heavier warhead (60 kg). The solid-propellant booster accelerates the missile in 4.5 seconds to Mach 1.5, which is then jettisoned and the ramjet motor is then ignited for 30 seconds to Mach 2.8 - 3.5 at 20g. Akash has a range of 27 km, with an effective ceiling of 15 km.

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).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 02:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Posts: 499
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
indranilroy wrote:
...

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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 03:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2227
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 ;-).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 05:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1218
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 06:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2227
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2012 06:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 8170
Location: Illini Nation
Cain Marko wrote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 12:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 940
Location: USA
Don't know if it belongs here

Javelin Sale To India On Track

Quote:
Indian army spokesman Col. Jagdeep Dahiya told Aviation Week on June 7 that “India is likely to get approximately 8,000 [Javelin] missiles and 300 launchers.”

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 12:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 12:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 8170
Location: Illini Nation
koti wrote:
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?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 12:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 940
Location: USA
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.
Quote:
Over 25,000 missiles have been produced and over 6,600 command launch units sold to the US Army and Marine Corps. Javelin has also been selected by Taiwan (60 launchers and 360 missiles), Lithuania, Jordan (30 launchers and 110 missiles), Australia (up to 92 systems and 600 missiles), New Zealand (24 launchers, delivered in June 2006), Norway (90 launchers and 526 missiles, delivery from 2006) and Ireland.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 15:31 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:04
Posts: 97
Location: Sunshine state
But wouldn't some of these missiles be reserves/backups?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 17:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Nov 2011 18:59
Posts: 299
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 21:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1031
koti wrote:
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.
Quote:
Over 25,000 missiles have been produced and over 6,600 command launch units sold to the US Army and Marine Corps. Javelin has also been selected by Taiwan (60 launchers and 360 missiles), Lithuania, Jordan (30 launchers and 110 missiles), Australia (up to 92 systems and 600 missiles), New Zealand (24 launchers, delivered in June 2006), Norway (90 launchers and 526 missiles, delivery from 2006) and Ireland.

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


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.


Last edited by srai on 11 Jun 2012 21:38, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 21:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Posts: 499
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 21:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1031
^^^

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 21:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 151
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 22:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4839
Location: Jatland
srai wrote:
<SNIP> 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.

<SNIP>


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 22:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Posts: 161
Location: INDIA
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 22:46 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30627
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012 23:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 00:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1031
rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote:
<SNIP> 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.

<SNIP>


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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 03:21 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 849
Ramana might be spot on. The "Javelin back on track" post-Panetta-visit could be a half-truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 04:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30627
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'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 07:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25586
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 09:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 11876
Location: Holding Jannat Ki Chabbi
Lets hope even these small numbers are not restricted to the Chinese theatre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 09:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7515
Location: India
But has the Javelin been tested along with rival missiles? How was it evaluated?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 09:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6199
Lets hope this a gap filler with a future Nag with lesser propelant and reduced range can match the 25kg of the Javelin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 09:41 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 849
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Pranav and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group