Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Aug 2014 16:40

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 ... 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 20:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Pratyush wrote:
A truck for missile carrying is truck designed for missile carrying. Then why is truck substitution such a huge issue.


It's not that easy as you make it to be. Each and every missile comes with its unique characteristics and the behaviour of the carrier vehicle has to be studied before certifying it for the said missile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 03:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
DRDO does not have any problem in accepting a TATA 12x12 or a even a premier padmini if it can do the job... but our armed forces will want gold plated bideshi mal washed in scotch... they will have to do multiple rounds of summer, winter, monsoon, spring tests in Bangalore, Kerala, Rajasthan, Leh, Tawang, Timbuctoo etc before placing a token order of 6 launchers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 03:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2796
Please blame the army when it is due. Here is a case where nothing much is known about the project. I see absolutely no reason to disparage the Army in this case as of yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 03:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
indranilroy wrote:
Please blame the army when it is due. Here is a case where nothing much is known about the project. I see absolutely no reason to disparage the Army in this case as of yet.

Remember the NAMICA episode, after years of testing they delayed induction citing issues with the carrier. anyway.. let us hope the IA inducts Prahaar and Brahmos on TATA 12x12 platforms in large number...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 07:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31
Posts: 975
DRDO to conduct eighth ballistic interceptor missile test this month

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is set to conduct its eighth ballistic interceptor missile test any day between November 19 and 22.

V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said that while the attacker, a modified Prithvi missile, would take off from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur, Odisha, the interceptor would blast off from the Wheeler Island and pounce on the attacker in endo-atmosphere at an altitude of 15 km to 16 km. The interceptor missile is called Advanced Air Defence (AAD) system. While the attacker would mimic the path of a ballistic missile launched from a hostile country, the AAD would race at a supersonic speed to intercept the attacker and destroy it.

As the crow flies, the Wheeler Island, off Dhamra village on the Odisha coast, is 70 km away from Chandipur.

Asked what improvements were made in this interceptor mission, Dr. Saraswat said the modified Prithvi missile would have a higher velocity.

“We have improved the accuracy of the interception in the endo-atmosphere… The interceptor will be launched in a hit-to-kill mode,” he added.

The Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme aims at protecting India’s vital assets from being targeted by the ballistic missiles launched by hostile neighbours.

Of the seven interceptor missiles tests conducted by the DRDO so far, six have been successful. The first interceptor mission took place in November 2006 in exo-atmosphere at an altitude of 48 km and it was successful. The second test, again successful, took place in December 2007 in endo-atmosphere at an altitude of 15 km. Out of the seven tests, five took place in endo-atmosphere at a height less than 20 km.

After the seventh interceptor missile test on February 10, 2012, Dr. Saraswat asserted that the success confirmed that India’s BMD programme in the endo-atmosphere “is now ready for deployment and the country is now in a position to take it to the next phase of production and induction.”

The maiden launch of Nirbhay, India’s sub-sonic cruise missile, has been further delayed. The launch, which was to take place in November this year, will now be done in January 2013, Dr. Saraswat said.

A DRDO official said the Nirbhay launch was delayed because modifications had to be made in the launcher. While India already had had a successful supersonic cruise missile in BrahMos, it felt the need to develop a sub-sonic cruise missile. Hence the development of Nirbhay, which would fly at 0.65 Mach. The Aeronautical Development Establishment, a DRDO unit in Bangalore, designed Nirbhay, which had been derived from Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft. Nirbhay is a two-stage, surface-to-surface, terrain-hugging missile. “It takes the oxidiser from the air. So it can travel for a longer duration and a longer distance. Its range is around 1,000 km.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 08:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Quote:
The Aeronautical Development Establishment, a DRDO unit in Bangalore, designed Nirbhay, which had been derived from Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft.


If this is true then their is a huge probability that the engine is totally indigenous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 09:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 424
If we compare the specification of AAD with HQ-9,SM-6 and S-300, then it could be use as sea based ABM missile in future on P-15C destroyer.

Guru log can put more light on it . AAD is a single stage solid propellant missile , weight and dimension are very much similar and guidance is also on par, only thing we need proper platform to integrate all these things.

DRDO should start RnD on VLS and sea based AESA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 10:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 424
Quote:
It takes the oxidiser from the air. So it can travel for a longer duration and a longer distance. Its range is around 1,000 km.


Does it mean we are using an air-breathing engine for nirbhay. And if this engine is indigenous then LR supersonic missile on cards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 12:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 254
Sagar G wrote:
Quote:
The Aeronautical Development Establishment, a DRDO unit in Bangalore, designed Nirbhay, which had been derived from Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft.


If this is true then their is a huge probability that the engine is totally indigenous.

Current we are using russian turbofan engine. Drdo also have a project on turbofan, but I am not sure in what stage it is now may seniors have some relevent updates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 14:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22498
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
keshavchandra wrote:
Sagar G wrote:

If this is true then their is a huge probability that the engine is totally indigenous.

Current we are using russian turbofan engine. Drdo also have a project on turbofan, but I am not sure in what stage it is now may seniors have some relevent updates.


Lakshya uses pretty much the only indigenous jet engine in service in India, the PTAE 7
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... kshya-uav/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 14:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6889
Given that we are openly stating Nirbhay range in 1000Km, don't think Russia would want to openly break its MTCR commitment. So either it will be so indigenous or will be restricted to Brahmos type 290KM. Painting and renaming stuff and claiming it to be indigenous has not been our forte like some of our neighbours


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 17:45 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32636
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Either our policy of being a good boy changed or rus might have given some tot and not complete engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 19:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5882
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Shrinivasan wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
Please blame the army when it is due. Here is a case where nothing much is known about the project. I see absolutely no reason to disparage the Army in this case as of yet.

Remember the NAMICA episode, after years of testing they delayed induction citing issues with the carrier. anyway.. let us hope the IA inducts Prahaar and Brahmos on TATA 12x12 platforms in large number...


Care to educate how NAMICA is related to TEL issue? Or,are u privy to some internal issues......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 07:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
Sagar G wrote:
Quote:
The Aeronautical Development Establishment, a DRDO unit in Bangalore, designed Nirbhay, which had been derived from Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft.


If this is true then their is a huge probability that the engine is totally indigenous.

Multiple sources have told that Nirbhay's engine is from Bearland... Maybe an indigenous engine is ini the works..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 07:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
^^^NAMICA is not related to TEL but more to do with the platform... IA tested the Nag missile for years and then after the missile was proven. They delayed induction citing problems with the carrier... Wht issues were there, if there were any, why not bring it up before...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 07:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4821
nash wrote:
Quote:
It takes the oxidiser from the air. So it can travel for a longer duration and a longer distance. Its range is around 1,000 km.


Does it mean we are using an air-breathing engine for nirbhay. And if this engine is indigenous then LR supersonic missile on cards.

It's a cruise missile. Every cruise missile uses an air-breathing engine. A LR supersonic cruise missile would require a Scramjet engine which would have more similarities with the Ramjet engine used for the Brahmos rather than a regular turbofan engine that will power the Nirbhay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 09:37 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5882
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^NAMICA is not related to TEL but more to do with the platform... IA tested the Nag missile for years and then after the missile was proven. They delayed induction citing problems with the carrier... Wht issues were there, if there were any, why not bring it up before...


You can do better than bring unrelated issues and then try to defend them with still unrelated arguments.....So, IA used NAMICA for donkey years and then, asked for the improvements. OK. Has IA used TATA/Domestic platform for Missiles for donkey years and then, asked for improvement and hence, there is delay in missile tests? Did IA decide on the platform to be used for missiles in IA Service or was it a fait accompli? How many instances you know of where private companies have been favored over DPSU? With the TATRA scam being what it is, do you think they'd have let go of opportunity to supply still more trucks for missile regiments of the IA?

Let us not confuse issues for sake of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 08:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
keshavchandra wrote:
Current we are using russian turbofan engine. Drdo also have a project on turbofan, but I am not sure in what stage it is now may seniors have some relevent updates.


Not buying it, give me details of the russian engine that we are supposedly using and links which confirm the same. Russia is a signatory of MTCR how can it supply us with an engine which will be used in a missile with a range much greater than 300 Km.???

Shrinivasan wrote:
Multiple sources have told that Nirbhay's engine is from Bearland... Maybe an indigenous engine is ini the works..


Multiple sources as in paanwala or news paper ???

I am averse to the claim that the engine is Russian unless I don't see confirmation coming from the right sources. America went all :(( :(( when Russia agreed to do ToT on cryogenic engine citing MTCR violation. I don't see any changes in the technology denial regime framed against India neither the Americans have suddenly grown a liking for India that they would allow Russia to do such blasphemy. I am willing to accept that the Russians have supplied the engine just give me solid evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 10:34 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32636
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... eView.html

As for the engine India has struck a deal with Russia for transfer of technology of the Russian Saturn 36MT engine.

New Delhi also has a deal with Moscow which allows it access to the high-precision signal of Moscow's Glonass satellite navigation system.

--
Hindu article by TS subramanium talks of turbo prop engine leading to speculation of a 2nd model using prop-fan engine tech of cancelled KH101-ER model.

engine could be a derivative of the PTAE7 with a powerful hot section based on 36MT TOT, kind of how RR(hot)+MTU(cold)+hispano suiza(hydraulics,exhaust) "own" their sections of the EJ200 engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 15:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Singha wrote:
engine could be a derivative of the PTAE7 with a powerful hot section based on 36MT TOT, kind of how RR(hot)+MTU(cold)+hispano suiza(hydraulics,exhaust) "own" their sections of the EJ200 engine.


This is the very likely case about Nirbhay's engine, America won't allow Russia to violate MTCR. Still I doubt the ToT part, most probably it might have been consultancy provided by them as in the case of Arihant's nuke reactor.

Can any Garu enlighten us why PTAE 7 can or cannot be used as an engine for cruise missile ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 16:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10105
Location: Satte pe satta satte pe soot; Pakistan ki m@ ki ....
Sagar G wrote:
Can any Garu enlighten us why PTAE 7 can or cannot be used as an engine for cruise missile ???

No garu here onlee on daroo :mrgreen: ; when you say cruise missile the key aspects are payload, range (for a given flight profile). For 30 minutes flight duration Lakshya has a range of about 150 km (this is not for lo-lo-lo flight profile) , now if you want to lob at least 100 kg of warhead and say payload is 200kg (including warhead) one is only left with about 600kg more (to get closer to Lakshya's max take off weight) , question is what kind of range will you get for a CM of this size and form factor ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 17:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
negi wrote:
No garu here onlee on daroo :mrgreen:

:rotfl:

negi wrote:
when you say cruise missile the key aspects are payload, range (for a given flight profile). For 30 minutes flight duration Lakshya has a range of about 150 km (this is not for lo-lo-lo flight profile) , now if you want to lob at least 100 kg of warhead and say payload is 200kg (including warhead) one is only left with about 600kg more (to get closer to Lakshya's max take off weight) , question is what kind of range will you get for a CM of this size and form factor ?


I am not talking about Lakshya saar only the engine. I want to know whether the engine can be used in cruise missile or is it not fit for that purpose ??? Can the engine sustain itself for the prolonged period and fulfill the requirements or whether a totally new engine has to be designed for propelling the cruise missile ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 18:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
@ Shiv Garu

While searching for GTRE Laghu engine I came across a LIVEFIST post on the matter and I think you might want to take a look at the article

Now, A Third Indigenous UAV Turbofan Effort

Is it really what I think it is ??? See something familiar there saar ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 19:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
The reason the PTAE-7 should not be used (or at least it won't be as efficient in the current form anyway) is because it has about 70% higher fuel usage per kilogram of mass it helps fly than what is need for an effective long range subsonic cruise missile. This makes the vehicle performance in range far less than desired (~550 km instead of 1000 km for the same fuel mass as a Tomahawk, for example)

Actually, this is a good point to do a parametric study of engine choice:
Consider the following:
a) Let's assume that the Nirbhay turns out like a stretched version of the Lakshya PTA and has similarities with the US Tomahawk missile
b) In assuming the same sizing, I will assume that the internal fuel carried is the same as that of the Tomahawk (1000 lbs/ ~454 Kg).
c) The tomahawk I am considering is using a Williams F107 Engine. (Check Google uncle for details on this engine if you like)
d) I would like to consider a choice of the F107, PTAE-7 and 36MT as possible engine choices
e) All three engines have the required thrust values needed to power the missile. Only difference is the fuel usage in cruise:

Code:
---------Engine--------------------Fuel Usage (Kg/hr)------------------------Effective Range (km)----------
Williams F-107                       154.26                                      2500.0
PTAE-7                               260.10                                      1482.7
Saturn 36MT                          160.60                                      2401.3


This is of course not a surprise. The PTAE-7 is effectively a turbojet engine when what is required is a turbofan-ski (there are alternatives to a pure Turbofan available, as outlined by the 36MT design, for example. There are others as well).

Now note that the effective sizes and masses of the three engines are also different (PTA and Saturn engines being heavier and having a higher thrust rating than required by the Tomahawk outer mold line), so the range numbers above will be more detrimental for the two replacements of the F107.

Looking at the thrust numbers for the three engines:

Code:
---------Engine--------------------Thrust (Kg)-------------Launch Weight with Booster (Kg)------------Missile Length (m)
Tomahawk/Williams F-107                       275.22                      1600                            6.25
Lakshya/PTAE-7                               400.10                        705                            ~3
Lakshya/Saturn 36MT                          450.00                         -                              -


So the obvious question that comes to mind is why the Lakshya uses a clearly overpowered engine on a much smaller airframe? The answer is maneuverability. The Lakshya is designed to do typical 3g flight maneuvers and is rated for up to 6g. So the logical extension has always been whether a reduction in the maneuverability of the Lakshya could be traded for increased mass of fuel for a cruise missile application? The answer is yes. But not with the PTAE-7 engine for reasons described previously. However, note that for the type of application in mind for the Nirbhay (i.e. launch from perhaps sea level areas just south of the Himalayas for a flight through/above the peaks and then into terrain hugging mode for the plains beyond) it might be required to maintain a lower fuel mass (and hence overall mass and sizing) in return for higher maneuverability through the valleys and peaks, if required. Whether the decision to go for higher maneuverability has been made or not is going to decide the overall scaling beyond the Lakshya for the Nirbhay. However, the reason the range is less compared to the Tomahawk (i.e. about 1000 km) when it could have had a much higher range could be due exactly to this fact.

Now, the Lakshya even in its present form was always suspected of being easily converted to a cruise missile because of its engine performance and MTOW design for 705 kg. The thing is, the 705 kg is not accounted for in the typical flight profile masses (even if you are conservative) and the missile could easily add a 100 kg warhead and some additional fuel for a one way straight flight of >600 km. The only restrictions were the avionics and navigation required (and the will to do this!). The Nirbhay, then, being derived from the Lakshya has been long time coming from a systems standpoint.

The Nirbhay-M (For the Maneuverable version for the sake of this conversation) therefore, is likely to be a slightly shorter than Tomahawk with larger control fins like the Lakshya. We might also see the Nirbhay-LR with smaller control fins and a longer length very similar to the Tomahawk. But the PTAE-7 was always the achilles heel for converting the Lakshya into a cruise missile. Hence the Russian connection. The performance of the Nirbhay-M and -LR variations are highlighted below as a function of payload/warhead mass possibilities on a surface map of fuel mass and corresponding range of the missile choice.

Image Image

What these maps will show is that there is a versatile design space available between the two original design points just waiting for inputs from other system requirements and user preference. But that said, the PTAE-77 performance will be lower compared with the US and Russian options. Is that necessarily a bad thing? If you look at the two plots, you can see that the Nirbhay-LR model created by lowering the maneuverability does afford very reasonable ranges. So Why go for the Russian option unless the need is for range and maneuverability. The US option in this regard is not usable even if it were available: it is too low on thrust capacity.

All in all, expect the Nirbhay to have either:
a) >2000 km range with lower maneuverability using the 36MT engine
b) ~1500 km range with lower maneuverability using either the PTAE-7 or some variant of it used for the Nirbhay (NE-7?)
c) ~1500 km range plus high maneuverability using the 36MT engine
d) >800 km range plus high maneuverability using the PTAE-7/NE-7 engine

ImageImageImage

P.S.: I have been wondering for quite some time about the Saturn 36MT. It would of course be better to develop a turbofan version around the PTAE-7 but that is a snake-pit in terms of risks involved. We cannot simply use the turbojet core of the PTAE-7 as the basis for a turbofan because of external diameter restrictions. Which means that the current core must be made even smaller. Not a trivial task under any conditions. It is only in this light that I find myself agreeing with a straight buy of the 36MT: it helps to ensure the product gets delivered on time for a change.

Anyway, JMT and all that.

-Vivek


Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 13 Nov 2012 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 19:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32636
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
does the graphs take into account the indic situation of launch from sea level and having to climb to around 12,000ft to clear through the ladakh, uttaranchal and NE valleys before descending again to hug the tibet plains? thats going to burn extra fuel for sure esp as that will be in initial part of flight when the fuel tank is also heavy and fullish.
GLCM and SLCM will be our first applications.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 19:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Singha wrote:
does the graphs take into account the indic situation of launch from sea level and having to climb to around 12,000ft to clear through the ladakh, uttaranchal and NE valleys before descending again to hug the tibet plains? thats going to burn extra fuel for sure esp as that will be in initial part of flight when the fuel tank is also heavy and fullish.
GLCM and SLCM will be our first applications.


Yes, the factors are built into the empirical correlations for range. I modified them for terminal phase being at Tibetan plains. Of course, the range improves more when you consider that the Nirbhay will then be terrain hugging at ~10,000 feet ASL. Helps improve range compared with doing so at 0 feet ASL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 19:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Thank you vivek_ahuja saar for replying with your detailed analysis.

vivek_ahuja wrote:
It is only in this light that I find myself agreeing with a straight buy of the 36MT: it helps to ensure the product gets delivered on time for a change.


But wouldn't this alleged buy constitute an MTCR violation by Russia ??? I mean how come the Americans are not doing their usual haai tauba ??? Its because of this very silence from the Americans that makes me believe that we haven't outrightly bought Russian engine but they might have helped us make one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 20:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Sagar G wrote:
But wouldn't this alleged buy constitute an MTCR violation by Russia ??? I mean how come the Americans are not doing their usual haai tauba ??? Its because of this very silence from the Americans that makes me believe that we haven't outrightly bought Russian engine but they might have helped us make one.


It might very well be so. I for one would not like anything better than to see our own engine (made with Rooskie help perhaps) powering this bird. But I am concerned about another Kaveri black hole sucking this project down with it. If they have bypassed this potential area and have been successful in modifying the PTAE-7 similar to the 36MT, then I will be delivering free mithai to all BRF folks here. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 20:18 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32636
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
lately we have let it be known indirectly that brahmos could have 500km range and that on its purely rus engine. so on paper Rus and India are both playing by the Khan rulebook but who knows what is really happening. the degree and extent of help extended by the 200 or so Rus experts on Arihant (who the PM personally thanked in his launch ceremony speech) is not also clearly revealed for obvious reason.

imo not being able to take any route over the himalayas for a SLCM/GLCM without cost in range having to climb to 20,000ft+ is a irritant that a air launched CM could solve. Cheen could map the potential approach routes and lay SAM traps or atleast radar coverage along these chokepoints....though it will be a huge undertaking over a undulating 2000km of mountains.

the Boeing AGM129 appears to be a really cool weapon looking at shape and specs...incl that flat nozzle to dissipate the IR signature
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1203


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 20:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
vivek_ahuja wrote:
But I am concerned about another Kaveri black hole sucking this project down with it.


Not going to happen again, DRDO has learned it's lessons. I think we would have to wait till the first test of Nirbhay to get any idea about it's engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 20:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10105
Location: Satte pe satta satte pe soot; Pakistan ki m@ ki ....
MTCR and other rules were always these moving goal posts to keep small fish in one corner , after POK-II, success of IGMDP and PAD we have been witnessing a slow but gradual change in Unkil's approach with regards to engaging India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 21:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
As it is common to gauge against Tomahawk for any cruise missile, here is some snapshots to gauge performance of Nirbhay

~1300 kg Tomahawk has a maximum range of ~1600 km

And it is reported,

~1000 kg Nirbhay has a range of ~1000 km.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 16:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1160
vivek_ahuja wrote:
If they have bypassed this potential area and have been successful in modifying the PTAE-7 similar to the 36MT, then I will be delivering free mithai to all BRF folks here. :)


I thought one gentleman on BR had promised some x kg / MT of mithia for something, something, something !!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 05:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22498
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Singha wrote:
lately we have let it be known indirectly that brahmos could have 500km range

AFAIK this is by changing cruise altitude to a higher one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 05:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22498
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Sagar G wrote:
@ Shiv Garu

While searching for GTRE Laghu engine I came across a LIVEFIST post on the matter and I think you might want to take a look at the article

Now, A Third Indigenous UAV Turbofan Effort

Is it really what I think it is ??? See something familiar there saar ???


LOL! :D Good catch. There is only one BRFite who uses paintbrush in that unprofessional manner to draw a stupid looking arrow and that's me. Yes I think LIVEFIST owes me one. The arrow points to a BLISK and I had lnked the image on the forum.

The original is here
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... k.jpg.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 09:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4821
Aroor seems to be becoming as shameless as chorgupta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 21:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
It will be interesting to see his response if shiv saar you decide to point it out to him that it's your clicked image and not his. Sometime ago he had carried out a series of posts detailing his conversation with some magazine editor which had used parts of his blogposts without his permission, was delivering sermons then about IPR. Now when caught in the act himself, whether he chooses to apologize or not will show for what he truly is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 21:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 6584
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
interesting that he has approved shiv's comment .... lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 22:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 668
ITR to conduct interceptor missile next week


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 02:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 1562
Vivek: thanks for the detailed analysis.

Btw, 10000 ft is not exactly terrain-hugging. Methinks we havent perfected/created TERCOM maps & the ability to program the missile in near real time to permit tree top level flying.

One step at a time


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 ... 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, vinod, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 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