Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jan 2017 09:23

Bheeshma wrote:Wouldn't Shaurya or Brahmos-2 (range permitting) be ideal to take these out? Why waste a BM? Shaurya has enough range 1200-1800 Km and is fast enough that it won't be intercepted.

Don't fully agree with gagnulla. A-6 better be our own SS-18 SATAN type, 20 m long , 2.0 m wide and 10-20 100 KT warheads with range of 10-13 Km. A sub KT nuke will still be considered nuke, just like Indian doctrine.

Anything within 2000km is prey to Shaurya. With a question mark hanging above Nirbhay for now, Shaurya should be treated as quasi-cruise missile and produced in droves. The conventional and strategic burden in the short term falls on brahmos and shaurya. These should be advertised as such. In any case, Shaurya is not that much heavier or bigger than say the russian Kh-22. Place it around A&N and fine tune it for Anti ship role with seeker and smaller CEP. Perhaps with some terminal maneuvering. With its speed, time to target is very less and that itself makes interception difficult. May be even set up some UVLS type set up (borrowed from Arihant) on new 10t DDG/Cruiser class.

From the eastern states, many Chinese targets in the southeast come into its arc - HK, Hainan etc...

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 03 Jan 2017 09:35

I dont think Shaurya is as accurate as cruise missiles. Missiles like Nirbhay will have CEP of ~10m or even less. Shaurya may have CEP of ~50m or more given it is a ballistic missile and its long range. This makes a big difference and Sharuya will not be very effective with a conventional warhead. It can perform an anti carrier role but I don't forsee chinese aircraft carriers to be a threat to India till 2025 or even 2030

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jan 2017 09:52

^ there were some noises about Agni series achieving CEP in single digits (I think Indranil posted something to the effect a few posts ago). But CEP can be improved, esp. if they can get a brahmos type seeker in it. IIRC, the PAD/AAD program was using was using an active seeker.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jan 2017 10:11

^rohiths, neither Sagarika nor its land-version Shaurya is purely a ballistic missile. They can be launched as a hypersonic cruise missile also. Neither of them leaves the atmosphere. To me, they appear as a depressed trajectory ballistic missiles of a short range, whose excess energy therefore, is utilized in manoueveres like twisting to avoid being shot down. Besides, they are indeed accurate even without IRNSS based course correction which is now added to them. By all available information, they have a single-digit CEP.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 03 Jan 2017 11:14

Even with a 2 digit CEP Shaurya with its 1 ton warhead will prevail. It won't be fired with minimizing collateral damage in mind.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Jan 2017 11:15

With nukes the point of collateral damage is irrelevant no.?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Jan 2017 11:19

Pratyush wrote:With nukes the point of collateral damage is irrelevant no.?

I think Shaurya is being talked of as an alternative to the Nirbhay which hasn't been successful, to be used as a regular cruise missile with conventional warhead. Might be the only way we have to attack juicy military targets in Chengdu MR. Our airbases and corps and division HQs will definitely receive a lot of love from Chinese cruise missiles if the balloon goes up. We have to pay back in kind somehow.

disha · Post by **disha** » 03 Jan 2017 13:04

Indranil wrote:Ramana sir,

You are correct, if the data published by Ajai Shukla is for this test: burnout speed of 5-6 kmps and burnout altitude of about 260 km, then the resultant projectile will be around 5000 km.

How are you getting 5000 km? My equations give me @4000 km. I also use the elliptical I can post my equations (6 Km/Sec., burn out altitude at 260 km) - but wondering why the discrepancy of some 1000 km in my calculation vis-a-vis yours?

nits · Post by **nits** » 03 Jan 2017 15:49

May be a Noob Question- I did try to seach on google but didnt got a satisfactory \ exact answer

India is very successful in Ballistic missile but struggle in Cruise missile as per latest media reports...

1) What is the advantage cruise missile has over ballistic
2) Can a country live with not having Cruise Missiles
3) in what scenario one need cruise missile and not ballistic and vice a versa

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 03 Jan 2017 15:51

CMs are more accurate and can be sea skimming for shipping targets. Hence avoid radar.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 03 Jan 2017 16:12

This bunch of Agni missiles is getting way too complicated for a doltish mind like me. So I've been compiling some data and came across this presentation, has some diagrams, mathematical formulas and explanations which may prove useful : http://isssp.in/wp-content/uploads/2015 ... agappa.pdf

This is some of the data I've collected till now and reasonably sure that most of it is correct, more or less. There is a lot of conflicting information which makes this work quite time consuming. Wikipedia has numerous such errors and I have processed dozens if not hundreds of webpages to be reasonably sure. Apart from data related to "VEHICLE, OPERATIONAL, 1st Test, Last Test, Total tests, USER" if there is anything that needs to be added, kindly let me know.

Apogee Data
http://www.astronautix.com/i/india.html

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Yt2 ... ni&f=false

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2017 22:09

Indranil, Are you aware of probability paper? Its used to plot probability of consecutive successful tests.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jan 2017 22:36

nachiket wrote:
Pratyush wrote:With nukes the point of collateral damage is irrelevant no.?
I think Shaurya is being talked of as an alternative to the Nirbhay which hasn't been successful, to be used as a regular cruise missile with conventional warhead. Might be the only way we have to attack juicy military targets in Chengdu MR. Our airbases and corps and division HQs will definitely receive a lot of love from Chinese cruise missiles if the balloon goes up. We have to pay back in kind somehow.

Yes, shaurya should be spoken of purely as conventional weapon, nuke payload ignored. Just like brahmos. There should be no reference to it as anything otherwise. Not a part of deterrence posture. In the open at least.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2017 23:01

Shaurya is a hypersonic weapon. It means the initial phase is ballistic till the apogee and then it renters using hypersonic flight. This is the conventional strike weapon profile. Usually called 51/49 profile. The consensus is ballistic are for special delivery.
So claiming nukes on it makes it unusable like the Prithvi.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 03 Jan 2017 23:19

Problem with Nirnhay test told by a Chaiwalavtoba Paniwala was the unfolding of the wings (can it be called that) . This created the problem so mostly correctable without major issues.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2017 23:21

prasanna: that was the only issue? the folding fins? if what your chaiwalla said is true, that is great news and yes easily fixable for a missile scientist.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 03 Jan 2017 23:31

^ That was what was told to me. They say contrary to some reports waypoint navigation was OK but fin /wing related issues caused problems. The last test was a catastrophic wind deployment issue aborting the test. Remember it launches vertically turns and then deploys the wings after which it goes into a "plane " mode

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 03 Jan 2017 23:34

Also Rustom has done a 10 minute flight and now the goal is to have retractable front wheels to allow 360 degree optical pod rotation. The ability to loiter and waypoint navigation should not be a problem

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2017 00:47

Prasanna sir,

1. Regarding Nirbhay: the missile cannot fly for a minute if the wings were unfolded properly. The sequence is somewhat like this: Booster burnout and separation is within 15 seconds. Immediately afterwards (within a second) wings are unfolded and the vehicle becomes a glider. The engine spools up and starts generating power in the next 5 seconds or so. I don't think that Nirbhay has a major design issue because of that one very successful flight. I believe that there is/are faulty components in play. It can be fixed, but is ADE nimble enough to sort it out and fix it quickly. That is the question.
2. Regarding Agni-5, If the apogee is 580 kms, it is indeed not the maximum range of Agni-5. However, it is not a lofted profile. In fact, it is suppressed like what the Chinese are claiming. I am quite sure that these reduced range tests have anything to do with ASAT. It has everything to do with secrecy and logistical cost of the tests. After the burnout, it is like a stone with energy and thrown at an angle. So all they need to know is how much energy they can impart to the projectile at burnout. For maximum range, they just have to alter the angle of projection.

Ramana sir,
I did not find anything on the percentages. I did come across some papers for BMDs during my search which dealt with percentages. However, I did not read them beyond the abstract.

Disha,
What formula are you using? My understanding is based on the following two papers:
Click and click.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 02:22

prasannasimha wrote:^ That was what was told to me. They say contrary to some reports waypoint navigation was OK but fin /wing related issues caused problems. The last test was a catastrophic wind deployment issue aborting the test. Remember it launches vertically turns and then deploys the wings after which it goes into a "plane " mode

prasannasimha, I think it was the vertical fin being not deployed properly. It was cocked to the right side which caused the vehicle to head towards land.
Please ask again if possible.
Chaiwalas are notorious at not being seen again.

Indranil, will get you refs soon.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2017 04:35

Ramana sir,

Nirbhay does not have vertical stabilizers. It's fins are in X-configuration and they are never folded. So, no unfolding business.

ramana wrote: Indranil, will get you refs soon.

Thank you sir.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 04:39

Then its one of those X-vanes that could have gone awry.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2017 04:55

You have been sticking to that theory. Aren't you?

Okay, I will take it. I am just struggling to see how that would take a committee to find out. That would be a continuous deviation, won't it?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 05:31

Indranil wrote:You have been sticking to that theory. Aren't you? Okay, I will take it. I am just struggling to see how that would take a committee to find out. That would be a continuous deviation, won't it?

My rationale is like this:
- Second flight shows there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Nirbhay.
Coming to present flight it was destructed when it veered towards land.
- Could be software? Probable but not plausible as software is proofed on iron bird or hardware in loop on the ground.
- What could make the vehicle go towards the land once it is in level flight? Could be one of the vanes that steered it like a damaged vane/fin. Yes it would be continuous deviation form flight path and towards land. they probably have telemetry from the vehicle showing its flight path and all the readings from its INS.
One remark from the scientists was

The sources ruled out any problem with the missile's configuration. They said it could be “a hardware failure” that led to the mission being aborted. “This is a hardware element issue. This is a reliability issue with a component,” they explained.

A committee has to look into it to ensure a structured analytic process was followed to determine root cause. While doing this they will find other issues which are lurking.

BTW here is the post I made soon after the test:

viewtopic.php?p=2091895#p2091895

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2017 09:35

I also "feel" it is hardware failure, but hardware related to the navigation, not the airframe.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jan 2017 04:23

A relevant editorial on the A4 and A5 tests

China rattled over Agni tests

Long time ago when I used MS Word it would suggest Agony for Agni.

Looks like China has that now.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 05 Jan 2017 04:37

It would be an interesting exercise to plot tested (reduced) ranges , possible launch locations and try and identify which locations in Han land are they practising for.

@ agony

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jan 2017 04:57

Nirav, I thought about this one.

If you look at the A-4 tests, the six tests are between 3000 and 4000 km ranges. And the SFC is happy to test at that range.

DRDO would test at minimum and maximum ranges to test the vehicle capability. OTH SFC would test for ranges of interest.

So where would the 3k and 4k circles fall wrt China and West Asia?

also read the first click that Indranil posted. It will be illuminating.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jan 2017 05:19

ramana wrote:A relevant editorial on the A4 and A5 tests

China rattled over Agni tests

Long time ago when I used MS Word it would suggest Agony for Agni.

Looks like China has that now.

Add the potential 'Israeli Samson' option to that and you've got checkmate: if Pakistan nukes us, we're taking you down with us.

I've got nothing to lose, madman (Nixon in 1973) theory works as a deterrent.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jan 2017 05:31

Correct. Will xpost in the managing China threat thread....

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 05 Jan 2017 07:23

The wing unfolding (not fin) was supposed to be the issue.it did not deploy out fully causing it to veer after deployment.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2017 07:29

the wing seems to be a single piece with its pivot in center. it turns by 90' to deploy ... one half swings back 90' other half swings in front 90' .. maybe the tolerances in its housing is too fine and it gets stuck or bent in deployment. they could try a old indica type design with 1" body panel gaps

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 05 Jan 2017 08:29

Cosmo_R wrote:
ramana wrote: Add the potential 'Israeli Samson' option to that and you've got checkmate: if Pakistan nukes us, we're taking you down with us.
I've got nothing to lose, madman (Nixon in 1973) theory works as a deterrent.

Seems we have been able to keep our actual capability hidden from PRC and slowly removing lid to tease them. Once they realize the the real import of what is staring at them from Indian side , they won't be that smug or feel clever like Paki.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 05 Jan 2017 10:19

^The wing indeed is a single piece and rotates 180 degrees to deploy. Thee us a video somewhere out there showing IRS deployment testing. If I am right the wings deploy and the holes slam shut (probably for aerodynamic reasons bit I may be wrong. Should see a lateral photo in flight to see if the second thing happens.
So if there is some error in deployment the wings would be angled and probably the flight control systems could not correct it by whatever methods they use.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 12:00

Agni has hit it bullseye.

If India makes more long-range ICBMs, Beijing may help Pakistan do the same, says Chinese state media

Prasanna sir, the wing is indeed a single piece which hinges 90 degrees around its center to deploy. Once deployed the gap in the fuselage is covered by a fairing for drag reduction. However, the scenario you are describing is very unlikely. There is no half-deployed position. Once the lock from the stowed position is unlocked, the wing deployment and locking into position is mechanical and automatic.

Anyways, I have no news of what went wrong. So your story is the only thing I have to go on.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Jan 2017 12:03

Indranil wrote:Agni has hit it bullseye.

If India makes more long-range ICBMs, Beijing may help Pakistan do the same, says Chinese state media

The Chinese and NoKo's already gave Pakistan missiles which can reach pretty much anywhere in India. The only ones who ought to be scared of ICBM's in paki hands are unkil and Israel.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 05 Jan 2017 15:04

nachiket wrote:
Indranil wrote:Agni has hit it bullseye.

If India makes more long-range ICBMs, Beijing may help Pakistan do the same, says Chinese state media
The Chinese and NoKo's already gave Pakistan missiles which can reach pretty much anywhere in India. The only ones who ought to be scared of ICBM's in paki hands are unkil and Israel.

Nachiketji you forgot one country from the list, China itself. Can it really trust the pukis with its own security? This is all bluster. They could have given this tec to the pukis years ago but did not as I personally do not think that they want the puki umbrella to cover themselves.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 05 Jan 2017 18:47

^^ This was what was told to me - the wing did not deply fully (I think they ahve to find out why) Probably if the wing got stuck at say 170 degrees instead of fullly out to 180 and gets lo9cked in place then things would be OK but if it gets stuck at some angle wouldn't it be difficult to maintain flight ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Jan 2017 20:07

Singha wrote:the wing seems to be a single piece with its pivot in center. it turns by 90' to deploy ... one half swings back 90' other half swings in front 90' .. maybe the tolerances in its housing is too fine and it gets stuck or bent in deployment. they could try a old indica type design with 1" body panel gaps

Yup, was shown in one of the NDTV videos from a couple years back. Video link:- https://youtu.be/XV1qcv52H6Y?t=2m59s
Looks like a very simple design, hard to believe it could go wrong.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2017 20:22

There is a spring loaded type flap that seals the slit where fin comes out. If that fails to close can have an effect..if that closes early can trap the fin before its out 90'