Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by koti »

nash wrote:INS chakra or INS arihant or kilo class?

I highly doubt if it would be kilo class because of missile length.
Kilos do not have VLS.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by koti »

A Spike in Javelin's back... :-o
IMI Spike selected over Javelin
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

K15 launch would be from Arihant only. which is confusing because some reports claim its reactor not yet operational...without a operational power plant it surely cannot be towed like a floating pontoon to launch area and pushed underwater!
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

Prithwiraj wrote:This report is confusing and misleading.... I was not aware any submarine version of BrahMos.
The report is confusing only in its statement that the submarine-launched BrahMos is already in the Navy's arsenal. This is not true. However, BrahMos chief Sivathanu Pillai has repeatedly talked about the submarine-launched version of BrahMos. The first under-water firing of the missile, from a submerged pontoon, was expected by end-2011. However, it is now expected by end of December, 2012. The submarine version of the missile is tipped to arm the Navy's next line of P75-I submarines.
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20067 »

Not sure this was posted before or not

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/hypersonic/

Russia Preps Mach 7 Missiles — With India’s Help


Image
Russia and India are already testing a new supersonic cruise missile, which is pretty cool, we guess. But going Mach 2 or thereabouts isn’t all that fast these days. Everything has to go faster. That’s why the two countries are also developing a hypersonic missile capable of traveling more than five times the speed of sound. Problem is even building the engines, let alone missiles, is extremely hard to do.

If it works, the missile — called the BrahMos 2 — is expected to travel up to Mach 7 from sea-, land- and air-launched platforms. And it’s supposed to be ready for flight tests in 2017, which is overly optimistic, at best. “I think we will need about 5 years to develop the first fully functional prototype,” Sivathanu Pillai, CEO of India-based BraHmos Aerospace said in Moscow on Wednesday. Pillai also suggested the missile already exists, and that BrahMos has conducted ”lab tests [of the missile] at the speed of 6.5 Mach.”

There’s little doubt India and Russia are pursuing hypersonic weapons technology, though it remains to be seen whether such an ambitious timescale as suggested for ‘Brahmos 2′ could be met,” Douglas Barrie, an air warfare expert for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, writes in an e-mail to Danger Room. “The original Brahmos is basically a Russian missile, the NPO Mashinostroenia 3M-55 Onyx (NATO designation SS-N-26), so it will be interesting to see the extent to which Brahmos 2 might draw on previous Russian hypersonic research and development.”

For one, they’ll probably need to build a scramjet engine, which is still a long way from being anything but experimental. The concept, though, is surprisingly simple. As the missile — or whatever vehicle the scramjet is attached to — accelerates through the air, the engine begins to suck in oxygen. Stored fuel, such as hydrogen, is then mixed with the oxygen and burned before being accelerated and pumped out through a nozzle. This motion then speeds up the missile to hypersonic speeds. The catch: Getting it to work is really difficult.


There’s the sheer heat generated by traveling at such speeds. And getting a scramjet into missile-form is even harder. You’d need sophisticated guidance tools, sensors and navigation equipment to keep it in the air and to its target, while also making it small enough to launch from a conventional aircraft. And you still have to solve the propulsion problems.

Just ask the Pentagon. Its experimental pizza-shaped hypersonic weapon capsule, Falcon, failed its test in August before plunging into the Pacific Ocean. The Air Force’s scramjet — the X-51 WaveRider – has a better record, but was bruised by a test last summer when its engine failed. The Air Force is pressing on, however, with a new hypersonic missile for its stealth fighters. The Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has also been successfully tested, but it’s nowhere close to a deployable weapon.

“You ask the question, how hard is it? The answer is, it’s really hard,” says Mark Lewis, formerly the Air Force’s chief scientist. “It’s not a matter of simply taking a supersonic thing and flying it a little bit faster. The physics work against you, the temperatures get higher, everything really does get harder.”

Hypersonic and scramjet research in the United States also goes back to the early days of the Cold War. But it wasn’t until 1991 when Russia became the first country to successfully test a scramjet. More tests followed, and with the help of NASA, Russia successfully flew a hydrogen-fueled scramjet at up to Mach 6.4 over Kazakhstan in 1998. In 2001, U.S. defense analysts took notice of a mysterious ultra-high-speed Russian missile test suspected of being powered by a scramjet. The first successful solo American scramjet tests didn’t occur until the 2000s, though they were some of the first tests to use engines that operated entirely as scramjets. The earlier Russian tests were hybrid ramjets — slightly different, with oxygen only moving at subsonic speeds inside the engine.

Also, don’t think it’s a coincidence that Russia now wants a hypersonic missile of its own. In May, Russian defense industry chief Dmitry Rogozin called the decline of research into hypersonic weapons since the Soviet era “a treasonable act to our national interests,” and that developing hypersonic weapons was necessary to respond to U.S. developments. Nor are cruise missiles the only area where Russia is afraid of falling behind even more than they already are. It’s why Russia is preparing to open up its own version of the far-out research agency Darpa — while also planning a new stealth fighter, directed-energy guns and radars (to help shoot down our stealth planes). Russia also wants new ICBMs (though they flop on launch).

Another reason is that the technology is just really cool. “I think the applications are profound and really could be game-changing,” Lewis says about hypersonics. It’s flying higher and faster, and not surprising people want it.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by arnab »

Well - given the definitions being used in the Tank dhaga and the fact that they are talking about 24,000 odd missiles, I think the news item should read:
Israel India pips US India in anti-tank guided missile supply to India
All very confusing onlee but what to do :)
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22539 »

^^Indeed :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by srai »

koti wrote:A Spike in Javelin's back... :-o
IMI Spike selected over Javelin
Lets do rough numbers:

Code: Select all

Direct Planned purchase - 8,000 missiles + 300 launchers
Planned Licensed Production - 24,000 missiles + 2,000 launchers

Totals - 32,000 missiles + 2,300 launchers [roughly 12-14 missiles per launcher]

If equally distributed between the 356 infantry battalions, we get roughly 6 launchers + 80 missiles per battalion.
The article quotes sanctioned strength is 81,000 missiles. This means there are another 49,000 missiles to be procured over the next decade or two. Some of these are known - 22,000 (4,100 Milan 2T, 10,000 Konkurs-M, 8,000 Nag/200 NAMICA).
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

koti wrote:A Spike in Javelin's back... :-o
IMI Spike selected over Javelin

I guess, apart from the ToT issue, the decision by the US Government to limit the number of launchers and missiles was also an issue. Goes on to show the level of fossilized minds and thinking process in US Government - especially, the State Department. Well, good riddance, I say.

But if we are going to build such a huge number of Spike ATGM for the army, then it means that a domestic ATGM is out of question. NAG is then likely to have only two avatars - one mounted on NAMICA and HELINA. We should have ideally partnered with Israel and built our own man-portable ATGM.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

we have requirement of 81000 ATGM, quoted in Article. And we are getting 8K in ready to use mode and rest of them(24000) will manufacture here, it will take some time.Still about 50K left and helina is already developed , going through trials and issues of NAMICA, i think has been fixed.So possibility is there for Domestic ATGM in the form of portable version of NAG.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

nash wrote:we have requirement of 81000 ATGM, quoted in Article. And we are getting 8K in ready to use mode and rest of them(24000) will manufacture here, it will take some time.Still about 50K left and helina is already developed , going through trials and issues of NAMICA, i think has been fixed.So possibility is there for Domestic ATGM in the form of portable version of NAG.
Well, I think the number including the outright purchase is 24K. The article says 'bulk of 24K missiles will be manufactured at BDL".

As for the rest of the requirement - well, the requirement for BMP-2 of the mechanized infantry and main gun fired ATGM of T-90 are different from these. Also, i don't think helicopter fired ATGM are yet included in the 81K tally. Here again, we are going with foreign vendor (PARS 3-LR).

So, I don't know how much is left for domestic man-portable ATGM.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

we should be able to use Shipon rockets / CG rifles instead of ATGMs in many situations. should be 10X cheaper.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Singha wrote:we should be able to use Shipon rockets / CG rifles instead of ATGMs in many situations. should be 10X cheaper.
Well, I don't think the above are substitute for ATGM in any circumstances.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

rohitvats wrote:
Well, I think the number including the outright purchase is 24K. The article says 'bulk of 24K missiles will be manufactured at BDL".

As for the rest of the requirement - well, the requirement for BMP-2 of the mechanized infantry and main gun fired ATGM of T-90 are different from these. Also, i don't think helicopter fired ATGM are yet included in the 81K tally. Here again, we are going with foreign vendor (PARS 3-LR).

So, I don't know how much is left for domestic man-portable ATGM.
Even if 10-15% of 81K comprised domestic ATGM(NAG or Helina or other variant) then it won't be small thing, if we look at the token order of 400 odd NAG.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

nash wrote:<SNIP>Even if 10-15% of 81K comprised domestic ATGM(NAG or Helina or other variant) then it won't be small thing, if we look at the token order of 400 odd NAG.
I don't think you got my point - I was referring especially to man-portable version of NAG. That is where the meat of the requirement is and which I think should come from domestic sources. We all know ToT goes to what extent in terms of helping the domestic MIL-IND complex - even after manufacturing Milan ATGM for donkey years, the Milan-2T version manufactured by BDL fell short of the basic requirement (after repeated trials) and Army was forced to buy the same (4,100 missiles) by MOD - which was arm twisted by BDL.

NAG and HELINA will get their fair share - but in overall scheme of things, the number is going to be small.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Rohit: going by the LRSAM delay saga, I am not sure if the Israeli JVs are smelling of roses. They seem to be taking our funds, building Iron Dome, David Sling etc and investing minimal manpower on LRSAM. They, like Russia, are laughing their way to the bank

Instead of partnerships, DRDO would be better of reverse engineering Spike + incorporate elements of Nag to build our homegrown MANPATGM. We should aim to at least avoid the next round of imports.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Sagar G »

They seem to be taking our funds, building Iron Dome, David Sling etc and investing minimal manpower on LRSAM. They, like Russia, are laughing their way to the bank
Russia is still better but these Israelis are very uccha koti haramkhors, was recently disillusioned about Indo Israeli puppi jhuppi.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by shiv »

Prem Kumar wrote: They, like Russia, are laughing their way to the bank
I have a slightly different take on this. Let me use an analogy. If we go back a decade or so Indian IT people were imported to the west in large numbers until complaints came in that they are "taking our jobs" The trend then changed to employing those Indian IT people in India.

When the USSR broke up China imported Russian engineers like the west imported Indians. What India is doing is to keep Russian and Israeli engineers employed in their own lands - like Indian IT people employed in India. It is a form of outsourcing. Just like Indian IT people are laughing all the way to the bank in India on western IT money, some Russians and Israelis too are doing that on Indian money. It is a business model.
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20067 »

^^
But that is not the problem. The problem is about delivering for what they have been employed for.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by JTull »

shiv wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote: They, like Russia, are laughing their way to the bank
I have a slightly different take on this. Let me use an analogy. If we go back a decade or so Indian IT people were imported to the west in large numbers until complaints came in that they are "taking our jobs" The trend then changed to employing those Indian IT people in India.

When the USSR broke up China imported Russian engineers like the west imported Indians. What India is doing is to keep Russian and Israeli engineers employed in their own lands - like Indian IT people employed in India. It is a form of outsourcing. Just like Indian IT people are laughing all the way to the bank in India on western IT money, some Russians and Israelis too are doing that on Indian money. It is a business model.
There's a key differece: IPR. In IT (sofware!) oursourcing, the product and related tech IPR is owned by the "client" and not the "developer" who is just a hired hand.

In LRSAM example, the IPR will be retained by the "developer" and the client will just have access to the product. As the "client" is a stakeholder in the success of "development", it is possible for them to have some shared equity during investment and, consequently, in IPR. But my experience tells me that cutting edge (harware!) patents can easily be usurped by the partner at whose location the development takes place. The other partner needs to be very vigilant. I've usually not seen such zeal from our sarkari types.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by chaanakya »

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

At that age if they are able to do Padmasan, good for them

anyways, for Iron Dome, its AESA radar is considered as crucial, with Akash system's Rajendra radar from which a WLR is derived and is pepped to go the AESA way in version 2 then should be able to fill that role for a desi version of ID.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Shiv: I was about to comment on the IP rights when I noticed that JTull has written about the same point. Israel will own the IP of LRSAM & I have very serious doubts whether the deal has a Transfer of knowhow - especially for the seekers. Otherwise, its only somewhat better than a supplier-buyer relationship with some breadcrumb of "joint development" sound-bite thrown in - because DRDO builds the propulsion. Similar situation as Brahmos.

Secondly, one of the key rationales behind a JV for LRSAM was the early availability of the product, compared to the time it would take for a from-the-scratch in house development. With every delay, that rationale needs to be called into question. This also highlights the difference between this and an outsourced IT project. In the IT project, such delays would mean serious financial penalties, with possible termination of contract. We are in no position to do either of these with respect to the LRSAM and Israel knows this. They know they can pull an Admiral Gorshkov on us.

I have a 3rd gripe about the LRSAM - its limited range, despite the Long Range in the name. At 70 KM, its seriously short legged, when we could have bought something off the shelf for twice that range at least, like S300. I just hope I am proved wrong in this & we can rapidly churn out longer range versions by adding a booster - without having to wait another 10 years for Mark 2 of LRSAM
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

valid points.

hasnt the iaf asked for a 120km range version of the LRSAM?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

^^ We need to understand the dynamics of range, before concluding more range is best.

Firstly, for any engagement, we need to detect. Then we need to track to understand its intention & to extrapolate the track to understand its intentions. Thereafter we need to identify it - is it a Pak Mirage 5 coming out to attack the fleet or a Sea Harrier coming back with non functional communications).

As the radius of range increases, the challenges to detect + track + identify increases exponentially. For example, is the blip at extreme range a migrating bird or a UAV gathering target data? So for a weapons system, the limitation isnt the propellant of the missile but the sophistication of its sensors.

Hence 70 km is an optimized range based on considering all factors. And the Israeli sensors (2248, sharing commonality with Green Pine & our LRTR) are better than equivalent Russian ones. And much lighter, enabling ships to carry a higher load. (LRSAM weighs 275 kg, S300 weight is surely higher).

Just missile range is highly dangerous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Ai ... light_1812
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20067 »

vasu raya wrote:At that age if they are able to do Padmasan, good for them

..
no one is doing Padmasan .. just so that we are clear
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Prem Kumar wrote:I have a 3rd gripe about the LRSAM - its limited range, despite the Long Range in the name. At 70 KM, its seriously short legged, when we could have bought something off the shelf for twice that range at least, like S300. I just hope I am proved wrong in this & we can rapidly churn out longer range versions by adding a booster - without having to wait another 10 years for Mark 2 of LRSAM
On terminology, by LRSAM, we are talking about Naval application of NG Barak missile. For IAF, the designation is MRSAM.

IN contemplated between Aster missile system and Barak system before choosing the Barak system from Israel. And we happen know the sensational tidbits in this process involving ex-CNS Arun Prakash.

Aster-30 is considered to be European equivalent of SM-2(latest block). Even for this Aster-30, it can engage fighter jets upto 70 km range only. 120 km figure is for bigger aircraft and for missiles the range is less than 70 km.

And if you cross check with Russian system for Naval application, S-300F is advertised to the max range of upto 90km only.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

Er kanson sir what are those tidbits?
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1205
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by A Sharma »

'Enemy' ballistic missile to be downed in space next month

Next month, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) will attempt to shoot down an incoming “enemy” ballistic missile in outer space, well before it enters the earth’s atmosphere. The DRDO chief, Dr VK Saraswat, has told Business Standard that a newly developed Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) interceptor missile will be launched from Wheeler’s Island, travelling 110-150 kilometres into space, where it will destroy an incoming missile fired earlier from an Indian Navy warship in the Bay of Bengal.

This comes on the heels of the DRDO’s successful Nov 23 test of its Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptor missile, which destroyed an incoming target missile at an altitude of 15 kilometres. Together, the AAD and the PDV missiles, along with their radars and control centres, will form a two-layered anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence system that will protect strategic targets like Delhi by 2013-14. While the AAD missile performs endo-atmospheric (inside-the-atmosphere) interceptions of enemy ballistic missiles; the PDV will conduct exo-atmospheric (outside-the-atmosphere) interceptions.

Next month’s test will feature a brand new target: a two-stage version of the Dhanush missile, launched from a naval vessel that is 300-350 kilometres from the interceptor location at Wheeler’s Island off the coast of Odisha, and soaring to an altitude of over 150 kilometres. This target missile would mimic the trajectory and speed of an enemy ballistic missile fired from 1500 kilometres away, such as Pakistan’s Gauri and Shaheen missiles. So far target missiles, fired from Chandipur just 70 kilometres away, could only mimic enemy missiles fired from a range of 600 kilometres or less.

“Firing range limitations make developing targets as much a challenge for us as developing interceptors. We have developed a boosted, two-stage version of the ship-launched Dhanush missile --- which makes it into quite another system --- taking it to a greater altitude that will mimic the actual terminal conditions of a 1500-kilometre class enemy missile,” explains the DRDO chief.

The brand new PDV will intercept the incoming target at about 110-150 kilometres altitude, far higher than the 50 kilometre-high interceptions that the exo-atmospheric PAD (Prithvi Air Defence) interceptor has been doing so far. The PDV will carry a new Indian electro-optic seeker, which will work in tandem with the radio frequency seeker that the PAD has traditionally carried. An electro-optic seeker provides greater accuracy and reliability than a radio frequency seeker in homing the interceptor onto the target.
The PDV will be a solid-fuel missile that will be powered by a sophisticated new “pulse motor”. This will provide surges of propulsion during the missile’s later stage, increasing its manoeuvrability when it is very close to the target.

“Intercepting the target at longer ranges provides several advantages. Firstly, the target is travelling slower --- some 2 kilometres per second at 150 kilometres; compared to 2½ kilometres per second at 50 kilometres altitude. Secondly, the target missile can be engaged before it enters Indian airspace, so that the debris falls into enemy territory. Finally, a longer flight time gives the interceptor more time for navigation, and the seeker can see better.

The PAD has been test-fired only twice, compared to the four test-firings of the AAD. DRDO insiders say that, with the PDV under development, there was no incentive to waste effort on the PAD. Now the PDV could well undergo a phase of intensive testing.

Alongside the actual launch of the PDV at an actual target missile, the test next month will also feature up to 6 simulated targets that will force the radars and command systems to respond. “We can launch six interceptors simultaneously --- some endo-atmospheric and some exo-atmospheric --- to handle such an attack,” says Saraswat.

The DRDO is meanwhile working on Phase Two of the anti-ballistic missile defence programme, which is capable of downing enemy inter-continental ballistic missiles fired from upto 5000 km away. The DRDO says the Phase Two shield would be deployed by 2016.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Kanson wrote:
was electronically hit at an altitude of 120 km
Before the first actual BMD test (exo-atm) was carried out in 2006, interception was done electronically as done today.
:wink: Its happening.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Singha wrote:Er kanson sir what are those tidbits?
:D Story is the adm who was evaluating various SAM systems for IN favoured Aster while CNS insisted on Barak. Juicy part is the adm who himself missileer questioned CNS decision and the stand off went down in a typical fashion that we see in BRF. :mrgreen:
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by kit »

PAD goes to near lower LEO :) . Whats next ?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

The brand new PDV will intercept the incoming target at about 110-150 kilometres altitude......PDV will be a solid-fuel missile that will be powered by a sophisticated new “pulse motor”
A brand new class of missile. Truly a RMA if all works well.
Last edited by tsarkar on 02 Dec 2012 20:29, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

Always knew the liquid fuel pad was a interim step to bigger and better.

The anti irbm ad1 interceptor should be a real meaty piece of work....arrow3 size for sure.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

EO seeker in tandem with RF Seeker, may be in future we can use this combo in Astra or other SAM and AAM.

Probably need to miniaturize the system and minimize the weight.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_23694 »

great going :)

is there any synergy between the LRSAM and PDV ABM system ?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by John »

Barak-8, Aster and ESSM are all of the same class of missiles' sub 400 kg missiles' which utilize improved flight path, pulse motor etc to achieve long ranges' while carrying a smaller warhead/hit to kill. The S-300 equivalent is 9M96. You cannot compare those missiles' with 40N6, maybe AAD will fill that gap.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

this time we are going for 6 simulated target. one will be PDV and for others it will be simulation intercepting.May be some day we go for actual multiple simultaneous interception using PDV and AAD not only from land but also from sea.

Any one have any idea about simulation interception...
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

A two stage Dhanush simulating the target will be heavier, would be interesting to watch (could mean Agni series may not be dragged into this). In future seems like both target and interceptors would be ship launched and yes would like to know about the simulated interception and why it would be limited to 6 targets if its mostly electronic, realistic scenario or computing resource constraints?

if its all electronic they could do any number of tests without actually firing interceptors, and they do that based on Kanson's post that simulations were carried prior to the 2006 test, so why do they announce that dimension only when actual interceptors are fired, deterrence? they could have fired PDV next month without saying anything about its electronic simulation in the recent test

On a separate note:
if an AESA based Rajendra were to fill in for the desi version of Iron Dome's radar, do we really need add a new set of logistics for this layer of defence?
Post Reply