Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Oct 2014 12:40

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4027 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2013 23:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Nov 2011 09:11
Posts: 125
Pinaka rockets successfully test-fired for second day

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 749205.cms

BALASORE ( ODISHA ): Indigenously developed 'Pinaka' rockets were successfully test-fired, on the second consecutive day on Friday, from a multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) by an armament establishment from a base in Odisha.
"Three rounds of Pinaka rockets were successfully tested today from the base at Chandipur , about 15 km from here, while three rounds had been fired yesterday," defence sources said.
On January 30 and 31, this year, seven rounds of 'Pinaka' rockets were tested from the same base.
'Pinaka', which has undergone several tough tests since 1995, has already been inducted into the armed forces.
The trial was conducted by personnelfrom Armament Research and Development Establishment ( ARDE ), Pune unit at Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) firing point-2 at Chandipur, the sources said.
"The MBRL , capable of acting as a force-multiplier, has been developed to supplement artillery guns," a defence official said.
' Pinaka' is an area weapon system with a range of 40 km. The quick reaction time and high rate of fire of the system gives an edge to the army during a low-intensity conflict situation, he said.
The unguided rocket system is meant to neutralise large areas with rapid salvos. ' Pinaka' system can firea salvo of 12 rockets in 44 seconds, the sources said, adding that the battery of six launchers can neutralise at a time a target area of 3.9 sq km.
The system's capability to incorporate several types of warheads makes it deadly for the enemy as it can even destroy solid structures and bunkers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2013 23:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 814
Location: satta ke galiyare
^Why is DRDO testing Pinaka. Its not even done by Army as a part of there inventory test. Its tested by personnel from ARDE. Is it the upgraded version tests of Pinaka MBRL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2013 00:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Posts: 388
Location: USA
Singha wrote:
>> A-2-A opposition remains a problem for both PGMs vs Dumb-bombs
true. but a lo-lo-lo bombing run will not need to climb to 10-15,000ft to drop the bombs assuming it ingressed through contested airspace at low level and intends to eggress that way again.
one soln for PGM delivery from treetop level the MBB DASA developed was a dispenser family called Mjoelnir upto 1400kg
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... jolner.htm
Range when launched at 50 m altitude and Mach 0.9 is more than 10 km in the direction the aircraft is flying, or 5 km to the side of the aircraft's path. Navigation is by INS and radar altimeter.
----------------
atleast against non-hardened targets maybe this approach makes sense for India

True. Good point.
BVR-equipped opposition becomes a new factor to be considered when bombing from medium-altitude as opposed to low-altitude.
I guess then its upto PGMs like JSOW (Which are 10-20 times costlier than a JDAM), HOPE-HOSBO.

--Ashish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2013 01:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38435
ramana wrote:
The important thing to note is DRDO version has a computer and MEMs gyroscope allowing it to have Paveway III features. Once the roll issue is mitigated, it could be a very potent system.

We need to wait for more press release (might have been buried in DDM failing to catch the nuances) to understand if on-off control or proportional control(PC) is used. With all that computer and MEMs gyroscope it could be PC. PC will give it more complexity and more flexibility.


wikiing it looks like DRDO Sudarshan is a 4th gen Paveway type system.

Wiki links:


Pave Way generic;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway

Quote:
Paveway kits attach to a variety of warheads, and consist of a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker, a computer control group (CCG) containing guidance and control electronics, thermal battery, and pneumatic control augmentation system (CAS). There are front control canards and rear wings for stability. The weapon guides on reflected laser energy: the seeker detects the reflected light ("sparkle") of the designating laser, and actuates the canards to guide the bomb toward the designated point.

The original Paveway series, retroactively named Paveway I, gave way in the early 1970s to the improved Paveway II, which had a simplified, more reliable seeker and pop-out rear wings to improve the weapon's glide performance. Both Paveway I and Paveway II use a simple 'bang-bang' control system, where the CAS commands large canard deflections to make course corrections, resulting in a noticeable wobble. This had relatively little effect on accuracy, but expends energy quickly, limiting effective range. As a consequence, most users release Paveway I and II weapons in a ballistic trajectory, activating the laser designator only late in the weapon's flight to refine the impact point.


Sudarshan differs by having electromechanical linear actuators instead of gas bottle driven pneumatic actuators and has MEM based IMU.


next, wiki on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway_IV

Quote:
The weapon is a guidance kit based on the existing Enhanced Paveway II Enhanced Computer Control Group (ECCG) added to a modified Mk 82 general-purpose bomb with increased penetration performance. The new ECCG contains a Height of Burst (HOB) sensor enabling air burst fusing options, and a SAASM (Selective Availability Anti Spoofing Module) compliant GPS receiver. It can be launched either IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) only, given sufficiently good Transfer Alignment, or using GPS guidance. Terminal laser guidance is available in either navigation mode.


Sudarshan's MEMs based IMU combined with the laser seeker makes it Paveway IV class weapon system.
What we need to know is if the Sudarshan system gets IMU updates from the aircraft prior to release or on the ground before takeoff?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 02:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31
Posts: 983
Indigenous component for missiles developed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 11:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1912
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
Prasan wrote:
Pinaka rockets successfully test-fired for second day

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 749205.cms

BALASORE ( ODISHA ): Indigenously developed 'Pinaka' rockets were successfully test-fired, on the second consecutive day on Friday, from a multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL)

pinaka rockets!! from MBRL! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 13:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Posts: 140
abhijitm wrote:
pinaka rockets!! from MBRL! :roll:


Why :roll: ? Pinaka is an MBRL system, isn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 13:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1912
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
^ yes Pinaka is an MBRL. But you do not refer it as pinaka rockets on an MBRL. That is grossly misleading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 13:45 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 17 Nov 2012 10:58
Posts: 30
Location: Gujarat, India
Snapshots from Tarmak007's video of Sudarshan LGB trial.., showing wobbling of Sudarshan after release:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 14:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6837
abhijitm wrote:
^ yes Pinaka is an MBRL. But you do not refer it as pinaka rockets on an MBRL. That is grossly misleading.


Atleast we are no hyping it as strategic missile like MBRL like Nasr


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 18:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1914
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
abhijitm wrote:
^ yes Pinaka is an MBRL. But you do not refer it as pinaka rockets on an MBRL. That is grossly misleading.


It's fine, the author is just naming out the two systems which goes into making Pinaka MBRL. Yeah but aam abduls might get confused.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 01:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1380
vipulmb wrote:
Snapshots from Tarmak007's video of Sudarshan LGB trial.., showing wobbling of Sudarshan after release:
Image


You can see the wobble increase as the folded wings expand out further and further. Maybe the solution is similar to what ramana had posted earlier (highlighted in bold).

ramana wrote:
...
Pave Way generic;
...
Quote:
...
The original Paveway series, retroactively named Paveway I, gave way in the early 1970s to the improved Paveway II, which had a simplified, more reliable seeker and pop-out rear wings to improve the weapon's glide performance. Both Paveway I and Paveway II use a simple 'bang-bang' control system, where the CAS commands large canard deflections to make course corrections, resulting in a noticeable wobble. This had relatively little effect on accuracy, but expends energy quickly, limiting effective range. As a consequence, most users release Paveway I and II weapons in a ballistic trajectory, activating the laser designator only late in the weapon's flight to refine the impact point.


...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 04:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2982
Hmmm.

That may be the case if the canards make such large deflection right from the beginning. I don't think that is the case. At 10-odd kms away from target, the canard deflections must be really small.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 06:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38435
srai, If you look at the way the test article drops tail first shows there is a CG/CP issue in the initial moments. Am sure it recovers as it does hit the target.
Elsewhere I posted the time line for a paveway II flight. We need to know how many of these were dropped so far and from what aircraft? Jags and LCA?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 07:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23182
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
ramana wrote:
srai, If you look at the way the test article drops tail first shows there is a CG/CP issue in the initial moments. Am sure it recovers as it does hit the target.
Elsewhere I posted the time line for a paveway II flight. We need to know how many of these were dropped so far and from what aircraft? Jags and LCA?

Ramana watch the video
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/02/blog-post.html

It doesn't drop tail first. A bomb that drops off an aircraft tail first would be very dangerous - and that is why bomb/drop tank/missile separation trials have received so much attention for LCA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 09:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1380
ramana wrote:
srai, If you look at the way the test article drops tail first shows there is a CG/CP issue in the initial moments. Am sure it recovers as it does hit the target.
...


Yes, it will stabilise from the initial wobble. But as per that Wiki article om Paveway-II you quoted earlier, the initial wobble and stabilisation period will expend a lot of energy which limits effective range (i.e. instead of 10km effective range it may end up less than 8km). A tactic developed on the Paveway series was to deploy the LGB canards much later as it approached the target.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 15:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Posts: 722
Location: Delhi
2 days to go for the D-day.. at 0.7 Mach


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 16:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4885
I did not see any announcement but yes the last report had the tentative launch date as March 10.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2013 14:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Sometimes (seemingly) simple issues can lead to a lot of problems. Between 1992-2001, DRDO could not get the Parachute of Lakshaya to open properly for recovering it without damage.


Last edited by vic on 10 Mar 2013 07:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 00:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1507
Location: GSLV++
dinesha wrote:
2 days to go for the D-day.. at 0.7 Mach

Tarmak007 on FB: Nirbhay launch likely on March 12.

-----------------------
10 .. 12 .. 11?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 06:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33272
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
We need to break our dependence on rus for the nirbhay engine. Sooner or later i feel unkil will come down hard on rus and they will cave in and cut supply. Being a strategic weapon we need to make one such engine ourselves asap.

Unkil does not like anyone making tomahawk clones. Only cheen and french have developed or developing comparable range weapons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 06:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10998
Location: Illini Nation
What is this about then?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-slG09nV27C8/U ... irbhay.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 07:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33272
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
The are projects but far from being a product the nirbhay can use. We need to get better at converting projects and protos into mass manufactureable and reliable product all across the board. Just info boards at defexpo doesnt mean its ready for prime time.

For now it seems we purchasd 200 saturn engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 14:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6837
if we are smart and find those engines working well, we should get license manufacture and keep a stock 2000 while Norbhay is being developed and simultanously work on them.

Wonder where did Cheen get the engines for the YJ-62 (in green paint it is called Babur), it does not look anywhere like KH-55, and given thier engine tech problems, I think they would imported engines from Rus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 16:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33272
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Ukraine could also have transferred some engines and production tech. Cheen is very chummy with ukraine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 19:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Jun 2012 20:26
Posts: 1676
Location: Chaprasi and Bawarchi third gilass, South East corner, aka Agneya
It is a joke that we can't make RR Orpheus type engine for our UAVS projects.

We do not have culture to do originall thinking but just addicted to CKD and screw driver methods.

If only we had the fore sight we would have developed the Gnat Engine as our basic design then upgrade to all exotic SC blah blah blah.
IIT Kharagpur IIT madras have had aeronautical engineering depts and thermal turbo machinery and Gas turbine courses and graduates for the last 60 years approx but still waiting for Russians damn it we buy Swiss propeller trainers so much for engineering pool
Read this
Quote:

kaiserbill,
The Orpheus 12 and its reheat version sound fascinating... I know where there is more data but I am engaged on writing material for Maurice Egerton's 1909-1914 aeroplanes mainly with a Gnome rotary engine to be used in an exhibition from 24th March to end April at Tatton Park's mansion... then I'll devil the data to complete the Orpheus story.
Jemiba,
Thanks for thread... Wibault died before the BE.53 ran and Kestrel flew .. so he never saw what a great aircraft he inspired... even if it was a mile away from his sketches, but I wonder what he would have made of this?
In summary the design iterations that Wibault was involved with after Bristol picked up the idea and ran with it are (hopefully this ties in with what I have already written!):
The BE48 replaced the centrifugal compressors with the axial Olympus l.p. compressor, using it as a fan;
The BE52 replaced the Orion and its gearbox with the Orpheus, but retained the separate intakes for the core engine;
The BE53 did away with the separate intake and used the fan to supercharge the core, giving more power;
The BE53/2, the first Pegasus, introduced contra-rotation and confirmed the use of four nozzles rather than three.
Reply #17 by tartle on 04 Feb, 2012 12:48
sealordlawrence... you suggested we compare a Viper and an Orpheus... well here goes


Engine mark Viper 600 Orpheus 803

configuration single-stage single-stage
compressor stages 8 7
combustor annular cannular- 7 tubes
turbine two-stage single-stage
T/O thrust lbt 3,750 5,000
Air mass flow lb/sec 58.4 84
Pressure ratio 5.8:1 4.14:1
length in 85.0 96.1
diam in 24.5 32.4
weight lb 790 975
t/w 4.75 5.13

It is not easy to deduce which engine had the earlier birth as redesign and incorporation of new technologies has proceeded apace on both engines. Also the duty is different so optimisation happens around different parameter points. However, as always, t/w ratio is an indicator. The most fundemental difference between the configurations is the bearing arrangement: 3 bearing arrangement on the Viper but only 2 on the Orpheus. This was really the first engine in Stanley Hooker's career that presented him with a clean sheet of paper... so he decided on a two-bearing arrangement as a way to achieve lower weight and then designed other components to achieve a stiff enough rotor assembly to avoid resonance issues. He obviously succeeded!

Viper engine production ended in 1996, but refurbished engines were being supplied as recently as 2009 for newly-built Macchi MB-339CD trainers for the Malaysian Air Force. Production in Britain by what were successively Armstrong Siddeley, Bristol Siddeley and Rolls-Royce exceeded 5,600.




Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 20:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33272
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
how many mech/aero depts in India incl IITs have a working few jet engines (lets say hawk/gnat size engines) and the ability and instrumentation to completely test them and tinker around with mods on them with manufacturer support as a teaching tool?
my guess is NONE and the situation is unlikely to change until we domestically make a few small engine families even if only for training and teaching purposes because foreign vendors are unlikely to want to help us understand aero engine and develop a base of tinkerers.
or alternately HAL gas turbine engine div should be made to tie up with these depts and build replica facilities .... cost will need to be borne by GOI though.

we arent serious about things, no point blaming anyone. given the drive and money many things can happen atleast at the low to medium end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 20:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 352
Singha wrote:
how many mech/aero depts in India incl IITs have a working few jet engines (lets say hawk/gnat size engines) and the ability and instrumentation to completely test them and tinker around with mods on them with manufacturer support as a teaching tool?
my guess is NONE and the situation is unlikely to change until we domestically make a few small engine families even if only for training and teaching purposes because foreign vendors are unlikely to want to help us understand aero engine and develop a base of tinkerers.
or alternately HAL gas turbine engine div should be made to tie up with these depts and build replica facilities .... cost will need to be borne by GOI though.

we arent serious about things, no point blaming anyone. given the drive and money many things can happen atleast at the low to medium end.


Good thought. Why cant we have some versions of the Kaveri as a stepping stone. We made it hence we know it. Let the students tinker around it. Though underpowered it works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013 21:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23182
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Singha wrote:
how many mech/aero depts in India incl IITs have a working few jet engines (lets say hawk/gnat size engines) and the ability and instrumentation to completely test them and tinker around with mods on them with manufacturer support as a teaching tool?
my guess is NONE and the situation is unlikely to change until we domestically make a few small engine families even if only for training and teaching purposes because foreign vendors are unlikely to want to help us understand aero engine and develop a base of tinkerers.
or alternately HAL gas turbine engine div should be made to tie up with these depts and build replica facilities .... cost will need to be borne by GOI though.

we arent serious about things, no point blaming anyone. given the drive and money many things can happen atleast at the low to medium end.

+1

Heck PTAE 7 is being lanched and lost with Lakshya. Why not let students learn with that? If IITs don't want it there are 500 well funded private engg colleges who would jump at the opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 05:00 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 11:34
Posts: 42
IITs are too busy with their rejection exams :D to get the unlucky ones who failed it and landed in then they kill student's free thinking to mint a follower they have a proven track record of so many decades in this . But shalom to those tough nuts who come out without this trademark Paisa kamao khush ho jao thinking they do us proud


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 07:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33272
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Iit aero depts i really wonder how many barring the few who go abroad for ms and phd in their branch are in aero after 5 yrs. probably in deloitte, mckinsey or goldman :)

We need a few engines, all the source code for the control syste and fadec, a proper lab and fuel to run it, some lab guys to repair and maintain it and a altitude chamber to simulate running it upto ceiling of 70,000 ft. Students and profs could do multiple projects on such kit even if the engine is the size of ptae7 or smaller so long as its designed to permit learning and tinkering.

Probably at present depts would have static old engines or cutaway models obtained from somewhere and rest is textbooks only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 07:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15114
Location: Chennai
Nirbhay's Maiden Launch Tomorrow - T.S.Subramanian, The Hindu
Quote:
Country’s first subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay (Fearless) is all set to be tested for its full range of 1,000 km on Tuesday from Chandipur, Odisha.

BrahMos is the country’s supersonic cruise missile.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) technologists said on Sunday preparations were in full swing for the launch of the two-stage surface-to-surface missile that uses a turbo-jet engine. The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a DRDO facility in Bangalore, has designed Nirbhay — a derivative of pilotless target aircraft Lakshya. The Research Centre, Imarat, Hyderabad, has developed Nirbhay’s crucial avionics while other DRDO laboratories have played their part in developing it.

Nirbhay, which looks like an aircraft, can drop bombs. It can be remotely controlled and brought back. In this mission, there are no plans to recover it or use it to drop bombs.

Nirbhay takes off from a road mobile launcher after a booster engine kicks the first stage. After the booster separates, the second stage, which has a turbo-jet engine, cruises at an altitude of 500 metres to one km. It will travel for a long time at a speed of 0.67 Mach. Aviation kerosene is the fuel.

“It will cruise in the atmosphere like an aircraft and it is capable of travelling up to 1,000 km,” said a DRDO missile engineer. “The biggest advantage with Nirbhay is that it can be launched from land, air and sea. It is a potent system,” he noted.

Nirbhay can fly over or around hills. It can fly at a very low altitude and avoid detection. Hence it is called a “tree-top” missile. It is a “loitering missile.” It can go around and around a target till it gets an opportune moment to bomb it. The U.S. equivalent of Nirbhay is Tomahawk.
Pakistan has a cruise missile called Babur that has a range of 700 km.

A DRDO official said Nirbhay was on a par with the best systems of its class. It was a third variant of India’s missiles, the others being the Agni series and the underwater-launched K-15/B05 missile. Nirbhay has latest navigation and guidance technologies, which were better than Pakistan’s cruise missile, {Now, why do we have to say that and compare ourselves to that wwretched country ?} he added.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 08:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 3137
Only .67 Mach?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 08:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 606
SSridhar wrote:
Nirbhay's Maiden Launch Tomorrow - T.S.Subramanian, The Hindu
Quote:
................

Nirbhay, which looks like an aircraft, can drop bombs. It can be remotely controlled and brought back. In this mission, there are no plans to recover it or use it to drop bombs.
....................................


Now that's interesting.

Doesn't that put Nirbhay in UCAV category instead of a LACM? I hope this is not a ruse, as I am already sold out on this baby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 08:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 15049
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
Hmm... A Rambha can carry 6 Nirbhays on its bosoms?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 09:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Posts: 632
Location: Bangalore
Quote:
Nirbhay, which looks like an aircraft, can drop bombs. It can be remotely controlled and brought back. In this mission, there are no plans to recover it or use it to drop bombs.

A subsonic re usable cruise missile :evil: :twisted:
Does this is a message that in re usable mode the range is 1k Km and in non reusable mode the range is higher.
But how it will be recovered? Any guesses.... like with parachute of our one UAV or use runway like another one :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 09:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38435
Turbo-jet or turbo-fan?
1000km range would be with turbo fan due to low sfc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 09:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1380
RamaY wrote:
Hmm... A Rambha can carry 6 Nirbhays on its bosoms?


It's probably a pretty heavy missile (>1,500kg) as well as being pretty long. A SU-30MKI would probably only carry one Nirbhay missile on its recently strengthened centreline pylon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 09:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2853
Location: gaganaviharin
SSridhar wrote:
A DRDO official said Nirbhay was on a par with the best systems of its class. It was a third variant of India’s missiles, the others being the Agni series and the underwater-launched K-15/B05 missile. Nirbhay has latest navigation and guidance technologies, which were better than Pakistan’s cruise missile, {Now, why do we have to say that and compare ourselves to that wwretched country ?} he added.
[/quote]

Reverse swing? To draw out the attention that the Baki missile program is nothing but a Chinese one? First compare Nirbhay with "best system" like tomahawk and then bring in the Baki missile program.

How about mentioning that Bakis are advanced in all systems of missiles rockets with tongue-firmly-in-cheek every time we test a Agni V or advanced submarine launch missiles? Will it draw attention to fact that how does Bakis have a missile program in first place and how is it advanced? Particularly when pieces of it is falling down - *successfully*?

Also the countdown to a green manna from heaven has started (in other words, Bakis will test a "successful" green painted missile with reports later coming how it successfully broke up or reached Iran).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2013 09:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2853
Location: gaganaviharin
Quote:
Nirbhay, which looks like an aircraft, can drop bombs. It can be remotely controlled and brought back. In this mission, there are no plans to recover it or use it to drop bombs.


I take it that it means the systems are shared with say Rustom (UCAV) only the command, guidance and datalink package may be changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4027 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand, Google Feedfetcher, rajithn, Yahoo [Bot] and 19 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