Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Jul 2014 07:54

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 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 06:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 1562
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 07:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
valid points.

hasnt the iaf asked for a 120km range version of the LRSAM?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 10:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1115
Location: mumbai
^^ 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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 10:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 491
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 13:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 13:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Er kanson sir what are those tidbits?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 18:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31
Posts: 970
'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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 19:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
Kanson wrote:
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 971
PAD goes to near lower LEO :) . Whats next ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1115
Location: mumbai
Quote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 424
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 449
great going :)

is there any synergy between the LRSAM and PDV ABM system ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1042
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 23:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 424
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 23:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 769
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 15:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1848
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
It is Nirbhay month isn't it? now waiting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 15:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 223
Location: Mumbai, India
The sanctioned strength of Man portable ATGM in the IA is 81,000 missiles. This is a government sanctioned figure, similar to the 42 squadrons of combat aircrafts in the IAF. Not to have developed a man portable ATGM upto now or the IA not mandated and sanctioned the development of a man potable ATGM is simply criminal.

The NAG has been in development for so many years. Yet no one had the sense to see that a BMP or a vehicle mounted ATGM had only a limited role in IA??

The development of a man portable version of NAG with a 2.5 Km range should have been sanctioned atleast in 2005, with a time window of 5 years to demonstrate a prototype version, comparable to the likes of Javelin and Spike. From comparable I only mean in terms of weight and ease of use. The performance would obviously be same or similar to the Nag, which is good enough. When the requirement is so huge, not to have developed something, which is well within our scope, shows the apathy of the services and particularly of IA, towards to indigenous products.

Only hope is that the spike contract somehow gets stuck in a corruption scandal and since US is playing hardball with javelin, we are forced to go the domestic route.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 17:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5636
^^^

Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.

Had a start been made in 2005, it would have been ready for an entry into service by now. But, it wasn't.

I feel that the IA, did not come up with the requirement, because the IA, it self was not clear on this requirement. They saw the US army use the Javelin in an ex in India for the first time in IIRC 2009, and it was an eye opener for them and they came up with this requirement of a 3rd gen MP ATGM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 18:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 223
Location: Mumbai, India
Pratyush wrote:
^^^

Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.

Had a start been made in 2005, it would have been ready for an entry into service by now. But, it wasn't.

I feel that the IA, did not come up with the requirement, because the IA, it self was not clear on this requirement. They saw the US army use the Javelin in an ex in India for the first time in IIRC 2009, and it was an eye opener for them and they came up with this requirement of a 3rd gen MP ATGM.


Even a start in 2009 would have been OK. They had already seen the Nag trials upteen times by 2009 and the Nag was near perfect, even at that time.

IA had already placed huge orders for Milan 2T and Konkurs (somewhere in the range to 10,000 to 15,000 missiles each), between 2007 to 2010. They surely knew that they needed to phase out the older Milan's and replace them with the 3rd gen fire and forget type of missiles.

To think of all the hard work that has gone into the Nag, 20 plus years of effort, having an indigenous IIR seeker and also perhaps a MMW seeker shortly, an order of 443 missiles, is almost an insult.

Reducing the range from 4 Kms to 2.5 Kms and making other other changes to system, the weight can probably be reduced to between 14 to 18 Kgs. In fact there was a news item in 2005, stating that DRDO was going to start working on a Man portable version of the Nag. Though nothing seems to come of that.
Here's a link to the news item:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/tod ... ef=archive

The last few user trials of Nag are also an indicator, that the missile system is never going to be deployed in numbers by IA. First they found faults in the Namica, after having slept for atleast the last 5 years, during which time they have been conducting user trials. Then in the last trials, they seemed to have tried Lock On After Launch, when the system is clearly not designed for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 18:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1042
Pratyush wrote:
^^^
Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.


Fact is man portable version hasn't been developed, developing sub 20kg fire and forget missile is easier said than done. So the fault lays with IA for not waiting for another 20 years for man portable variant?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 19:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
vasu raya wrote:
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
It is an important step in BMD where multiple missiles were intercepted though electronically. It shows the maturity of the BMD to tackle multiple threats as you see in Israel Gaza border. So being such an important event, they publicized the test. These steps give confidence to both user and nation in BMD development. By publicizing these events they(both user and nation as whole) are indeed treated as stakeholder. Ultimately this is for them. Further as add-on, this gives no room for anyone to say, "DRDO is pulling rabbit out of hat", or "Only so little tests were conducted whereas US conducted so many tests in BMD"

Quote:
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?
ID became hot topic among Indians with the introduction of Nasr. These Nasr and Fajr-5 are copies of Chinese rockets and Chinese do have wide variety of rockets. Point I'm making is, the threat we may face from this sector could be very different and sophisticated than what Israeli might be facing. Probability of retaining Rajendra(here i mean, a desi product than outright purchase) is high. Let's see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 21:13 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5860
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
mody wrote:
The sanctioned strength of Man portable ATGM in the IA is 81,000 missiles. This is a government sanctioned figure, similar to the 42 squadrons of combat aircrafts in the IAF. Not to have developed a man portable ATGM upto now or the IA not mandated and sanctioned the development of a man potable ATGM is simply criminal.


That is the total number of ATGM holding for the IA - which comprises primarily of requirement for Infantry and BMP-1/2 used by Mechanized Infantry. Gun launched ATGM like INVAR (for T-90) is the latest addition to this tally. In due course of time, helicopter mounted ATGM (like Hell-fire for Apaches and PARS-3LR for WSI-Dhruv/LCH and then HELINA) will add to the tally.


Quote:
The NAG has been in development for so many years. Yet no one had the sense to see that a BMP or a vehicle mounted ATGM had only a limited role in IA??


And this wisdom is based on what kind of understanding? You do realize that an ATGM is the only means which allows a BMP-2 to take on a MBT - w/o ATGM, these BMPs (and their occupants and entire Mech Infantry Force) stand no chance against MBT force. The only other vehicle mounted ATGM are on BRDM - but these are recce vehicles and ATGM are again critical for them to fight their way out or act as screening force.

Quote:
The development of a man portable version of NAG with a 2.5 Km range should have been sanctioned at least in 2005, with a time window of 5 years to demonstrate a prototype version, comparable to the likes of Javelin and Spike. From comparable I only mean in terms of weight and ease of use. The performance would obviously be same or similar to the Nag, which is good enough. When the requirement is so huge, not to have developed something, which is well within our scope, shows the apathy of the services and particularly of IA, towards to indigenous products.


Jumping to conclusions, are we?

NAG reached the status of a mature platform in 2008-2010 time frame...on what basis (level of technology available in house) could the development of a man-portable version have been sanctioned? What kind of technology base did we have to develop a man-portable version of a missile which itself was to yet to prove its credentials?

And you forget that BDL was in the process of providing Milan-2T to the Indian Army - IA had formulated a RFP for tandem-warhead Milan-2T in 2003 (because of advent of ERA in PA) and BDL delivered a missile in 2007 - which did not meet the requirement and IA closed the RFP. But BDL returned with 'new' missile in 2008 - this again did not meet the requirement. Finally, on the protestation of BDL Union, IA was forced to accept sub-standard missile in 2008 by the MOD.

Another question which you need to answer - there were reports of DRDO developing a man-portable version of NAG, whatever happened to it? If I understand correctly, stuff is nowadays imported only if DRDO says they cannot develop it in the required time frame. HELINA is no where in picture and PARS-3L is set to come as INTERIM measure...sometimes, we need to look beyond simply blaming IA for everything that ails Indian MIL-IND Complex.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 21:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5860
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
mody wrote:
Even a start in 2009 would have been OK. They had already seen the Nag trials up teen times by 2009 and the Nag was near perfect, even at that time.


Quote:
Reducing the range from 4 Kms to 2.5 Kms and making other other changes to system, the weight can probably be reduced to between 14 to 18 Kgs. In fact there was a news item in 2005, stating that DRDO was going to start working on a Man portable version of the Nag. Though nothing seems to come of that.


So, as per you, all it takes is simple miniaturization of the elements and voila, NAG would have materialized into a man-portable version? Well, it that was so easy, why was it not done? As you've yourself stated, DRDO did make announcement about man-portable version of NAG but nothing came out of it - I'm sure, even that is the fault of IA. Isn't it?

Again, if I understand correctly, each RFP falls in a certain category - and this category is arrived at after scrutinizing the domestic capability and securing the interest of DPSU (like in case of EW equipment which went to DPSU). The fact that RFP was issued to Uncle Sam for Javelin in the first place (and other OEMs) with condition for TOT, it is likely that DRDO was itself looking for technology from abroad - especially, the seeker tech for a man-portable version.

Quote:
IA had already placed huge orders for Milan 2T and Konkurs (somewhere in the range to 10,000 to 15,000 missiles each), between 2007 to 2010. They surely knew that they needed to phase out the older Milan's and replace them with the 3rd gen fire and forget type of missiles.


To begin with, please get your facts correct - rather than post what you thing, please read up and post the facts.

RFP was issued in 2009-2010 for 3rd generation ATGM - and keeping in mind the induction schedule for these missiles, the delivery of 4,100 Milan-2T was staggered. Konkurs are irrelevant to debate - they are for BMP-2 in the IA.

Quote:
To think of all the hard work that has gone into the Nag, 20 plus years of effort, having an indigenous IIR seeker and also perhaps a MMW seeker shortly, an order of 443 missiles, is almost an insult.


What to you is an insult, is to me plain ignorance - using your knowledge, please tell me, how many Nag missiles should have IA ordered and what should be done with them? Also, ever heard of Defense Plan wise induction of equipment into Services? And, how do you know there will be no repeat orders?

Quote:
The last few user trials of Nag are also an indicator, that the missile system is never going to be deployed in numbers by IA. First they found faults in the NAMICA, after having slept for at least the last 5 years, during which time they have been conducting user trials.


Was the IA conducting trials of NAMICA all these years or the Missile itself?

Quote:
Then in the last trials, they seemed to have tried Lock On After Launch, when the system is clearly not designed for it


Again, jumping the gun, are we?

Here, read this: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article2707196.ece

So, as per the above report, RCI had as of 2011 tested RF Technology for MMW Seeker during NAG trials and this can be used for Lock-on After Launch (LOAL) mode.

Quote:
Nag Project Director S. S. Mishra said that in Sunday's flight, the seeker's capability to track the target in a ‘Lock-on-Before-Launch' method, right from the missile's firing and throughout the trajectory, was successfully demonstrated. In future, the seeker would be used in a system in ‘Lock-on-After-Launch' mode for extension of the range.


How do you know that IA was not testing this feature in one of the NAG missiles during the trial? All the news we have of that test is some anonymous source from DRDO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3929
>>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

Question from a neophyte: does this mean we can also hit satellites? I'm presuming so, but some confirmation would be nice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10070
Location: Satte pe satta satte pe soot; Pakistan ki m@ ki ....
^ I would think so , spy/military satellites are generally stationed in LEO (100-500km) .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 05:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 971
negi wrote:
^ I would think so , spy/military satellites are generally stationed in LEO (100-500km) .


the lower LEO orbit sats might be targeted using PDV at its highest known altitude ceiling, but for a effective envelope the missile needs to go much further., possible next gen PDV could achieve that goal feeding telemetry data from deep space tracking systems.

But ., probably it is the ocean reconnaissance Chinese sats parked in GEO orbits that might be of more concern to India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 06:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 769
Kanson wrote:
It is an important step in BMD where multiple missiles were intercepted though electronically. It shows the maturity of the BMD to tackle multiple threats as you see in Israel Gaza border. So being such an important event, they publicized the test. These steps give confidence to both user and nation in BMD development. By publicizing these events they(both user and nation as whole) are indeed treated as stakeholder. Ultimately this is for them. Further as add-on, this gives no room for anyone to say, "DRDO is pulling rabbit out of hat", or "Only so little tests were conducted whereas US conducted so many tests in BMD"

ID became hot topic among Indians with the introduction of Nasr. These Nasr and Fajr-5 are copies of Chinese rockets and Chinese do have wide variety of rockets. Point I'm making is, the threat we may face from this sector could be very different and sophisticated than what Israeli might be facing. Probability of retaining Rajendra(here i mean, a desi product than outright purchase) is high. Let's see.


Thanks for the info Kansonji! with all the Chinese proliferation in the neighborhood, the opacity about their armaments and capabilities should be cleared


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 06:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Kit ghe cheen ocean recon sats are not in geo. thats why someone was saying they need 100 in sets of 3 to get real time coverage over the west pacific....hence must be leo or at best meo to be rotating so fast presumably in northsouth direction. I dont know if the highly elliptic polar orbit can be changed to a highly elliptic equatorial orbit to keep eyes on india longer..prolly not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 08:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 10889
JE Menon wrote:
>>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

Question from a neophyte: does this mean we can also hit satellites? I'm presuming so, but some confirmation would be nice.


Hell No ....To intercept a Satellite at LEO you need an interceptor that can intercept a target flying at little more than 7 km/sec which essentially is the same needing to intercept ICBM type targets.

PDV is more in THAAD class it can intercept IRBM type targets but at higher altitude likely means target flying at 4-4.5 km/sec

The next interceptor under development to intercept ICBM types target may well intercept a LEO sats and its interception chart which DRDO showed was altitude of 200 km just the right type to intercept LEO sats :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 11:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 424
Austin wrote:
The next interceptor under development to intercept ICBM types target may well intercept a LEO sats and its interception chart which DRDO showed was altitude of 200 km just the right type to intercept LEO sats :twisted:


It would be great if you share that chart with us or me..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 11:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14647
Location: Chennai
The building blocks for making an ASAT weapon are already there, such as Agni IV for propulsion and the kill vehicle of the AAD. Agni IV reaches a height of 900 Kms enough to cover all LEOs. That is why, I believe, that V.K.Saraswat keeps saying that the country possesses capabilities to neutralise adversarial satellites in space” in the low-earth and polar orbits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 12:41 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Needs to be as light and cheap as possible fr volume production and mobility.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 20:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Following up from the Possible Scenarios thread to here for more relevance of discussion:

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Singha wrote:
The kaveri is way too big and powerful to be a cruise missile engine unless you want a massive soviet era ks6 kingfish type missile as big as a plane.


Is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR-5#Variants
Quote:
The Raduga KSR-5 (NATO reporting name AS-6 Kingfish) was a long-range, air launched cruise missile and anti ship missile developed by the Soviet Union. It was essentially a scaled down version of the Raduga Kh-22 'Kitchen', built to be carried by the less capable Tu 16.

Specifications

Length: 10 m (35 feet)
Wingspan: 2.5 m (9 feet)
Diameter: 0.9 m (3 feet)
Launch weight: 4,000 kg (8,800 lbs.)
Speed: Mach 3.5
Range: 300 - 700 km (185-435 miles)
Guidance: Active radar or anti-radar homing
Warhead: 1000 kg (2,200 lbs.) high explosive or 350 kT nuclear


Look up the AS-5 Kelt. That missile is actually going to look like a air-to-air missile in comparison to the kind of monstrosity you will end up with using the Kaveri for a LRCM design...

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 08:48 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14647
Location: Chennai
Land Identified for Missile Testing Range
Quote:
Machilipatnam: This historic town in Krishna district will soon find a place in the world map with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) proposing to set up a Missile Launch Site near Machilipatnam.

The State government has identified land for the proposed missile testing range in Nagayalanka mandal, near the coastal town. Details of the land available have been sent to the defence authorities.

Krishna District Collector Budhaprakash Jyothi said following a plea by the DRDO seeking land near Machilipantam for setting up the long range missile testing site, the Revenue officials forwarded the file to the Government of India on the extent of land and other information.

Machilipatnam Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) I. Venkateswara Reddy said that the DRDO had asked for land a few months ago and a 325-acre land was identified at Gollalamoda village for the new missile launch site. A few acres of the land are under occupation by local fishermen and farmers.

“The DRDO asked for 350 acres for the launch site. Recently, we submitted the details on the type of land available, price position and how much land is under occupation. We are waiting for further orders from the government”, said the RDO.

Director General of DRDO and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, V.K. Saraswat, announced the launch of the missile testing range, near the Coastal town in Machilipatnam, in Andhra Pradesh at a cost of Rs.1,000 crore.

The ambitious project is expected to be completed in three years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 805
Ammo worth Rs 408 cr defective, Rs 279 cr spent on import substitute
Quote:
Design and manufacturing defects in ammunition for tanks produced indigenously by the ordnance factories led over one lakh rounds valued at Rs 408 crore being declared unserviceable. Consequently, the ammunition had to be imported at a cost of Rs 279 crore to overcome critical shortages with the mechanised forces.

This type of ammunition was being developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) on the basis of design developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) since 1997 and since then several lakh rounds were procured by the Army.

Inspections of ammunition holding depots by Army Headquarters revealed critical defects such as cracks in the cartridge case, flimsy propellant material and sticking cartridge of cases in packing containers, which rendered the ammunition unsafe for firing. Audit scrutiny revealed that on the basis of these inspections, 1.36 lakh rounds were declared unserviceable, out of which 1.02 lakh rounds had not completed their prescribed shelf life.

This resulted in a slugging match between the stakeholders. While the Army attributed the defects to insufficient quality control during manufacture, the OFB passed on the buck to the DRDO claiming design deficiencies. DRDO argued that if the ammunition suffered from design defects, then the entire quantity of ammunition produced since 1997, valued at Rs 1,400 crore ought to have manifested similar defects and not just the lots in question.

A task force comprising representatives from the Army, the OFB, the DRDO and the Directorate General of Quality Assurance to look into the issue concluded that the ammunition was beyond repairs as the procedure was hazardous, costly and reliability of the repaired ammunition could not be guaranteed. It has also been revealed that contrary to prescribed procedure, no serious investigation was conducted to ascertain the reasons for defects in the ammunition and to fix responsibility for such failure.

BLAME GAME

The Ordnance Factory Board passed on the buck to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) claiming design deficiencies
The DRDO argued that if the ammunition suffered from design defects, then the entire quantity of ammunition produced since 1997, valued at Rs 1,400 crore, ought to have manifested similar defects and not just the lots in question
A task force to look into the issue concluded that the ammunition was beyond repair as the procedure was hazardous, costly and reliability of the repaired ammunition could not be guaranteed

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121206/nation.htm#5


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 805
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121206/nation.htm#5
regarding firing ranges it seems the army is losing them at an alarming pace, army has lost half of its firing ranges in 3 yrs The number falls from 104 in 2009 to 51 as states deny land use
Quote:
In three years, the Army has lost over half of its field firing ranges that are vital for training and indoctrination of troops. The Ministry of Defence is holding the state governments responsible for not making land available for use by the Army, resulting in the number plummeting from 104 to just 51.

“Out of the total 104 firing ranges held by the Army till 2009, 38 were deleted from the list of firing ranges in 2009 due to these being not available for use by the Army or not re-notified by the state governments concerned in spite of concerted efforts,” Defence Minister AK Antony said in Parliament.

“Out of the remaining 66 firing ranges, 15 have been de-notified by various state governments,” he added.

The non-availability of ranges has adversely affected training and operational preparedness of the Army as it not only restricts mechanised manoeuvres under simulated battle conditions, but also prevents live firing by tanks and artillery which is essential for battle inoculation of troops and testing equipment.

Another reason behind dwindling number of ranges is said to be the clearances required to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for use of forest land for non-forest activities in accordance with the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

“Due to urbanisation, encroachment, unauthorised occupation and land rights resting with the state governments, the firing range land for armed forces is shrinking year after year,” Antony rued. Pointing out that concerted efforts were being made at all levels to ensure early re-notification of the de-notified ranges with the Army Commands also taking up the issue at Civil Military Liaison Conferences, Antony said efforts were on to impress upon the state governments and the Ministry of Environment and Forest for re- notification/acquisition of field firing ranges.

The issue of non-availability of firing ranges was also taken up by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence, which observed that while the Ministry of Defence had launched a process of consultations with all stakeholders in order to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem, it was high time that the ministry initiated “expeditious and concrete steps” to resolve the issue in a time-bound manner.

In fact, a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had revealed that inadequate infrastructure and facilities, including firing ranges and simulators, had compromised the training standards of recruits. These deficiencies, CAG observed, resulted in poor standards of firing of troops and non-achievement of excellence in battle efficiency tests and physical proficiency tests.

DWINDLING NUMBERS

38 entries were deleted from the list of firing ranges in 2009
15 more firing ranges have also been de-notified by various state govts
CAG has recently observed that dwindling number of firing ranges has adversely affected the training standards of recruits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 11:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Posts: 3744
Location: Somewhere Else
tsarkar wrote:
^^ 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


Cant's these long range missiles be guided by an AWACS ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 12:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32498
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
On paper possible but never operationalized because airborne presence cannot be guaranteed.


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 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kvraghav and 14 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