Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 27 Mar 2009 23:14

YA it is true where is problem. We have to trust our leaders.Even they also takes risk in this deal !!!!!!.Atleast they have gutS to deal. AT level of DM/PM they have some information which we commaner do'nt have.Turst in them or do'nt select them.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 27 Mar 2009 23:31

The dual pulse rocket motor for barak-ng has already been supplied to israel by drdo; some techfocus had the details, work on barak-ng has been going on for some quite serious amount of time.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Mar 2009 02:18

ramana wrote:The real story is that MoD sat on files for over a year and just before elections moved it. So there is a urgent need now which wasnt felt earlier. Might be the need to augment air defences in view of global developments.

This seems to be routine, NDA too signed all three major deals (AJT, AWACS and Submarine) in the last leg of its tenure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2009 02:51

Trust you to concentrate on first sentence. Sherlock my point was that is needed thats why they signed now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Mar 2009 02:57

Philip wrote:Is this system going to compete with the PAD ABM system?The ranges mentioned for the IAF missile appear to have some ABM capability.Where does it also leave Akash?,which is being procured in small quantities.If Akash ahs been a success,why not further develop it to the ranges for the ER Barak? It would save a lot of moolah and accelerate indigenisation.

It seems ABM systems are typically custom designed to intercept that kind of ballistic threat - from C&C, radars to interceptors. Regular air defense systems such as the Barak NG/8 have a "limited" ABM capability by default (or by some tweaking). However, they are designed to have a different sub-systems and engagement profiles of its interceptors in order to counter other more diverse airborne threats such as cruise missiles, combat aircrafts, UAVs, etc. For example, there are distinct versions of the S-300 systems which have different missiles and subsystems optimized for ABM or AD.

As far as Akash goes, the design seems to be a bit antiquated by today's standards. For the size of the missile, it only has 25km range and only a top speed of around Mach 2.5 and somewhat restricted engagement profiles. To counter modern threats, it requires greater distances, speed and engagement profiles. IMO, Akash missile by its design (based on the 1970 SA-6) has some inherent design limitations ... which means limited growth potential.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 28 Mar 2009 03:13

ramana wrote:Trust you to concentrate on first sentence. Sherlock my point was that is needed thats why they signed now.

Polls are around. UPA/NDA would need all the money they can get. Just have chai-biskoot until the right time onlee.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2009 03:17

Its not that. Try to read the stuff in the IA discusson thread and the looming PRC threat. Everything is not politcs and bribes. But I cant make you drink the water.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Mar 2009 05:14

ramana wrote:Its not that. Try to read the stuff in the IA discusson thread and the looming PRC threat. Everything is not politcs and bribes. But I cant make you drink the water.

I agree.
PRC thust will come in the form of Cruise Missiles (they have many thousands of low cost CM that they can let loose in sub-nuclear engagement) and Air delivered stand off weapons (they have developed this recently and showed that in their military systems shows; in next 1-3 years the stand off PGM will enter inventory in many thousands).

So making the Himalaya's inprenetrateable to CM and stand off weapons is critical. Ordering Barak-NG now is the right decision in technological, and credible military force buildup to negate and overcome the rapid PRC buildup against India that is on the roll now.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 28 Mar 2009 05:37

and what about our own offense? What do you believe we have in the thousands to ensure that the Chinese can think twice before doing anything? CM's, PGM's, bomb trucks or simply ball$?

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 28 Mar 2009 08:10

Arun_S wrote:
PRC thust will come in the form of Cruise Missiles (they have many thousands of low cost CM that they can let loose in sub-nuclear engagement) and Air delivered stand off weapons (they have developed this recently and showed that in their military systems shows; in next 1-3 years the stand off PGM will enter inventory in many thousands).

So making the Himalaya's inprenetrateable to CM and stand off weapons is critical. Ordering Barak-NG now is the right decision in technological, and credible military force buildup to negate and overcome the rapid PRC buildup against India that is on the roll now.

Arun, you've saved me much worry. Thanks.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 28 Mar 2009 08:19

Brahmos is too powerful and too shortlegged for china. (And it is getting more expensive too)
We have the seeker and targetting algo worked out - why don't we have like 2000 Nirbhay's deployed each with 2K range? Make a quarter of them airlaunched, 8-10 on each ship over 5000 tons and 200 or so sub launched.

If we are thinking of paying our respects to dlagon land we need these. Can't risk our pilot's lives on deep penetration strikes into the chinese heartland, within the short span of a skirmish, Air superiority which will allow even refuellers to cross over will be difficult to acheive.
That more or less leaves the job to the stand off weapons. The Nirbhay is the one we need the most.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Mar 2009 08:29

Anabhaya wrote:
ramana wrote:Trust you to concentrate on first sentence. Sherlock my point was that is needed thats why they signed now.
Polls are around. UPA/NDA would need all the money they can get. Just have chai-biskoot until the right time onlee.

If even Uber Rakshaks think like this - that is every big ticket military deal is signed only for kickbacks, without a shred of proof, then why can the DDM media for doing the same?

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Mar 2009 09:30

My take on this deal

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4289

It is well known how disinformation about defense deals can affect the nations defense preparedness.A question of calling 'wolf' many times over resulting in no response when the actual thing happens.The Phalcons have been delayed according to some sources due to delays in procurement of some key components.One should be aware that the Phalcon for India is 'somewhat' different .Early disclosure of key deals have been shown to block progress of key weapon systems since India is still heavily dependent on procurement of components even for 'indigenous' systems.This deal could augur well for India if properly executed since both potential adversaries are preparing for saturation missile attacks.The indigenous effort involving PAD is good but Israeli experience with combating missile/rocket attacks is second to none.It can only be symbiotic to the indigenous Indian missile defence system.I wish the MOD could release some details of this deal at least to clear some of the matters.All in all this deal is probably the right thing that was done 'late' (read inopportune timing .. just check who revealed the deal first..news was leaked by someone in foreign media first , then the IAI corroborated) but India being a democracy we have the 'right' to question even the right things ,for some to make the 'right' thing look wrong.
Btw who stands to benefit if the deal falls through ? militarily a strategic/tactical vulnerability vs China and economically the .....Americans !

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 28 Mar 2009 22:19

'India told us to keep deal secret'
Josy Joseph
Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:45 IST

The contract was signed on February 27, just days before the Lok Sabha elections were announced. IAI was told that premature disclosure could lead to problems, and even termination of the contract. The deal includes suspicious clauses, including one for the payment of 6% "business charges", which many observers believe could be a camouflage for commissions. The payment of commissions and middlemen are banned in Indian defence deals.

Following the DNA expose over the last three days, IAI had no option but to come out into the open. IAI told an Israeli daily that India had asked it to keep mum.

DNA reports exposing controversial arms deal worth Rs10,000 crore have forced the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to comeout with the facts.

According to a report in Globes, an Israeli financial daily, "IAI stated that it delayed announcing the contract until now because the customer (i.e., the Indian government) informed the company that early disclosure was liable to cause material difficulties in execution of the contract, and even result in its cancellation."

The report did not say why a formally negotiated deal between India and IAI, approved by the cabinet committee on security, should be cancelled just because it was made public. The IAI statement also raises questions about the conduct of the Indian ministry of defence over the entire deal.

The opposition parties, and especially the Left parties, are making hay over the DNA reports. It has become an election issue in Kerala, where defence minister AK Antony will have a tough time defending it. The Left is also using the report to display its opposition to Israel, presumably to score points with the Muslim electorate in Kerala and West Bengal, where it faces tough challenges from the Congress.
....
.......

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Mar 2009 23:54

Amit ji all this has become a vicious circle onlee; i.e. DDM tries to sensationalize every defence deal why ? because the opposition and the layman on the street will take a bite . Case in point Congress and its allies were baying for BJP and the NDA when reports of alleged kickbacks in Indo-Israeli deals were splashed by the media and now UPA itslef has signed a mega deal with Israeli companies ..

.

I believe as Vina and others have time and again re-iterated time has come to decentralize and reduce GOI's role in defense purchases which will inturn the prevent the mess caused by middlemen and their cartel operating from N Dilli .

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 29 Mar 2009 00:56

Avarachan wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
PRC thust will come in the form of Cruise Missiles (they have many thousands of low cost CM that they can let loose in sub-nuclear engagement) and Air delivered stand off weapons (they have developed this recently and showed that in their military systems shows; in next 1-3 years the stand off PGM will enter inventory in many thousands).

So making the Himalaya's inprenetrateable to CM and stand off weapons is critical. Ordering Barak-NG now is the right decision in technological, and credible military force buildup to negate and overcome the rapid PRC buildup against India that is on the roll now.
Arun, you've saved me much worry. Thanks.

How about fielding our own offensive missiles towards china
Why not every inch of border to china saturated with nuclear-tipped missile
(some dummies some. Real)

How about 100 SU-30mki in constant
Offensive loiter mode 24 hours a day

How about giving PAD, AAD, LSD etc to
Taiwan for free?

How about thinking OFFENSE for a change?

devendra.singh · Post by **devendra.singh** » 29 Mar 2009 01:14

Authorities and agencies cited in the report should have the right to take the author to court, the trouble of letting information out with defence deals makes it tough to do that though.

The Author of the article has a right to pose questions, however he(she?), should be more careful in selecting his/her words. Asking for the opinion of defence experts does not sound like incriminating evidence, it is however a starting point. It is our money being spent for the defence of our nation, we should be interested in the details.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 29 Mar 2009 06:31

Seeking scandals – on the sly

Excellent analysis by Rajiv Singh of the so called scandal. Please read the full article. I am posting relevant part.

On the sly
So what are the contours of the story? As is the norm with budding scandals, there is always a lot more of smoke than fire. A certain amount of writing skill allows a scandal to be neatly wrapped around a bare skeleton of 'facts'.

So let's take a look at the broad contours of the story–and dig into the nitty-gritties subsequently.

That the UPA government has ''quietly signed a massive, legally opaque, Rs10,000 crore defence deal with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), ignoring a continuing probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and initial vigilance concerns.'' The deal concerns the supply of medium range-surface to air missiles (MR-SAM).
That the deal ''comes at a time when India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class – the advanced air defence (AAD) missile, part of India's anti-ballistic missile shield.''
''The deal, which is being kept under wraps, could sound the death-knell of the indigenous surface-to-air Akash missile system, into which hundreds of crores have been invested over the over the years. More importantly, the deal ignores the success of the AAD missile, which could be deployed as a surface-to-air missile and used exactly like the Israeli MRSAM.''
From the man in charge
So, let's revisit the comments made by Dr Prahlad, chief controller, DRDO, the man in-charge of the Akash missile development programme, at the time of the signing of the deal.

''We are jointly developing a 70-km range MR-SAM in partnership with Israeli companies,'' Prahlad informed the media at the time the deal was announced.

''We may take around 12 years but the requirement of the services is that they want it (MR-SAM) fast. The only way to make it in four to five years is to partner with a country which has already developed some of the hardware. If they have got some hardware and we have got some knowledge, we can do it in 4-5 years,'' Prahlad said.

Prahlad added that the DRDO had already developed indigenous air defence systems, such as the Trishul and the Akash, but the latter did not fit the bill for the MR-SAM project as its range was only 30 km. The services, he said, had posited the requirement for a missile system with a range of 70 km.

This, as far as sounding the ''death knell'' of the Akash SAM system is concerned – from the man in charge of the development programme.

Now, for the next charge – that the ''... deal comes at a time when India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class – the advanced air defence (AAD) missile, part of India's anti-ballistic missile shield.''

The Green Pine base
The Indian BMD's AAD/PAD (renamed: Pradyumna) missile system is a proven success and is indeed in the same class as the MR-SAM system now being contracted for with the Israelis. So why has it been ignored?

No surface-to-air missile (SAM) system operates on a solo basis – flying blind. There is a back-up system, including radars, that provides the first promptings of a threat. Radars, and other related systems, then guide, or launch, the SAM in the direction of the hostile threat.

The AAD's support system, for all these years, has been the Israeli Green Pine radar, which allows the Indian BMD system to display the kind of effectiveness that it has. The Israelis sold two of these radars to us about half a decade ago, and these have formed the core around which the fledgling Indian BMD system operates.

The Green Pine system has now been further improved, and the DRDO has evolved the Swordfish radar, a system with enhanced range. The evolution has occurred on the back of the earlier platform – the Green Pine.

After the missile has been directed towards the hostile threat by the radar, it then becomes autonomous and begins to track, and ultimately home in, through its own 'seekers'. It is not confirmed, but there have been reports suggesting that the BMD programme may still be operating with Israeli, or even Russian, seekers.

This may not be the case, but then, like all technologies, seeker technology too is an evolving one – the Indians may have developed a particular generation of this technology and require to leapfrog to another generation. This may or may not be the case, but in defence nobody is going to enlighten you about the loopholes in their defences or development efforts either.

In defence, when a deal is being struck you may attempt to read between the lines, or the clauses, and figure out things which may not be stated for the reading pleasure of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Wilful overlooking
Now for the other point that the deal has been signed ''quietly'' by the UPA government, ignoring a CBI probe. This is wilfully overlooking the chain of events as they have occurred with respect to the deal.

The report itself concedes that the deal was cleared by the government sometime in 2007 – actually July 2007 – a good two years before the parliamentary elections were due. So why was it not signed then, rather than now, when the whole world, including every defence reporter in town, would draw the appropriate conclusion and scream 'scandal' from the rooftops?

Well, for the very same reason, which the report itself provides. There was an ongoing CBI probe, and niceties of democratic conventions did not allow the deal to be consummated. So what changed, and why did the deal come to be signed days before the 2009 parliamentary elections were announced?

For that matter there was another deal signed a couple of months before this one – in December 2008 – with identically the same parties. This Rs1,800-crore ($400 million) deal is no small matter either, and involves the supply of 18 sets of Israeli SPYDER short and medium range missile systems.

If the MR/LR-SAM deal was cleared by the government in July 2007 and the decision held in abeyance till February 2009, the SPYDER deal was already in the works, and close to being solemnised, by October 2006. So, how come the deal was ultimately signed only in December 2008?

This deal too was kept in abeyance for over two years for the very same reasons, according to the report, that the government has now violated – legal propriety. The CBI, we need to note, was 'investigating' an earlier scandal – the Barak missile deal involving the same parties, signed by the BJP-led NDA gvoernment. Though the country's defence preparedness required that the SPYDER and MR-SAM deals be consummated, legal propriety also required that CBI clear the parties involved.

But then in December 2008 and February 2009 both the deals were cleared in a hurry – as the investigative report suggests, in a ''legally opaque'' manner. Were election funding pressures looming, or was there another reason?

What open tendering?
The reports points out another violation – guidelines laid down by the ministry of defence itself. ''The fact is,'' the report says, ''that there was no open tendering in any of these three contracts (i.e., MR-SAM, SPYDER and Aerostat radars). IAI was the only participant from the beginning in the MR-SAM contract, and no comparative pricing was done in the international market.''

''Comparative tendering'' comes into operation with a commercial contract and not in areas of strategic interest where you already have a partnership of long standing. What tendering was done before the Israeli Green Pine radras were acquired – the bedrock of the Indian BMD programme? Technology of the Green Pine variety is not available for love or money in the open market – they can only be acquired if two, or more, governments agree to strengthen strategic relationships and pass on such technologies as proof of their long-term friendly intent towards each other.

It is known that the US and Israel got into a spat over the transfer of the Green Pine technology to India as it has been jointly developed by both nations as part of the Arrow BMD programme and was almost entirely funded by the US. Under immense pressure Israel eventually agreed to suspend interactions with India for a period of time.

It may be noted that Israel, another democracy, did not resort to ''open tendering'' for the transfer of the Green Pine radars to India and even risked an open spat with a strategic partner of long standing – the US.

The Israelis have gone the extra mile with regard to India, not just with the Green Pine exchange, but in various areas too numerous to enumerate – some only in the knowledge of the very few.

As already pointed out, it is not even clear if the Indian BMD programme has used, or is using, Israeli seekers for their intercepting missiles.

As they did with the Green Pine, Indians may have begun with a set of seekers provided by the Israelis and moved on to gradually evolve one of their own, or may be in the process of doing so, as they did with the Swordfish. They may have developed a particular generation of seekers and now feel that partnership is essential.

Defence development programmes have now gradually moved beyond the means of almost all companies, or nations, to fund entirely on their own – most programmes and nations are seeking partners.

Put simply, there could be more irons in this particular fire than we may imagine.

Life in defence – unfortunately for investigative folks – is not entirely about legal opacity, open tendering and the like.

Dr Prahlad put it in a succinct manner – on our own, the development cycle may take up to 12 years, but a joint development programme may shorten the cycle to 4-5 years. Cost analysis also includes time as a critical factor.

Strategic issues
Israel's Arrow BMD programme had the US as a partner. Surely this technological giant did not require seeking the partnership of such a small nation? They did, though, and so do we. And let us not get into hocus-pocus of 'open tendering' and 'legal transparency.' These are applicable to areas where technologies are comparable and available off-the-shelf.

No country in the world is passing on technologies of strategic interest on a commercial basis – and so ''open tendering'' and ''legal opaqueness'' are phrases strictly for the idle and ones with political axes to grind.

The Patriot system is not available on an ''open tendering'' system to anybody, nor the Russian S-300, for that matter. The Patriot was made available to India only after the country conducted the first round of its BMD tests in November 2006.

It is entirely to the credit of the Indian government that it held out for as long as it did in not consummating these deals – in the face of CBI 'investigations' – and lost out on two years of development time as a result.

The 26/11 shock
The fact remains that something did spur the government to act all of a sudden where, manifestly, it was sitting tight for two odd years on these deals. What could have provided the push?

Was it the sudden realisation that elections were a matter of months away and that party coffers were empty? Or did the 26/11 Mumbai attacks provide the wake-up call?

The deterioration in the security environment in the region, post-26/11, was sudden and rapid. The 'partnership' with the US in trying to corner Pakistan has yielded impressive results – precisely nothing. The massive Kupwara encounter in Kashmir, where 17 Lasher-e-Taiba cadres were gunned down by the Army, brought forth a prompt response from the L-e-T. A spokesman called up newspaper offices in Srinagar acknowledging the encounter and threatening more of the same. Things are not back to normal. They are only where they have always been – part of the offensive strategies of the Pakistani establishment.

Life has moved beyond the pale of conventional warfare – tanks will roll across the border only under the umbrella of protective SAM/BMD systems. If the enemy is not in a position to handle your conventional forces, or is overwhelmed by them in conventional combat it will take recourse to other means.

Mumbai 26/11 brought home the fact that a full-scale clash with our neighbour was a immediate possibility, in spite of all the 'nuclear' rhetoric that attends such arguments. It is only prudent that other arguments, such as ''legal opaqueness'' and ''open tendering'' were given the miss and the needs of the hour were taken onboard.

This, in all probability, is what the government did.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 29 Mar 2009 09:18

kobe wrote:
How about fielding our own offensive missiles towards china
Why not every inch of border to china saturated with nuclear-tipped missile
(some dummies some. Real)

How about 100 SU-30mki in constant
Offensive loiter mode 24 hours a day

How about giving PAD, AAD, LSD etc to
Taiwan for free?

How about thinking OFFENSE for a change?

Kobe, we are developing offensive weapons. From BrahMos II to Shaurya to Nirbhay to all the Agni variants, Indian scientists are hard at work. You have a point: all of us here would like the GoI to be more aggressive. But work is definitely being done.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 29 Mar 2009 13:34

BRAHMOS BLOCK-II version hits bulls eye

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 29 Mar 2009 15:04

Kakarat wrote:BRAHMOS BLOCK-II version hits bulls eye

Hey not so fast bro. Wait till army comes up with another weird whine story.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 29 Mar 2009 16:21

With this launch the requirement of army for the Land attack version with Block-II advanced seeker software with target discriminating capabilities has been fully met and this version is ready for induction.

This will provide an enhanced capability to the user for selection of a particular land target amongst group of targets. With this success BRAHMOS has become the only supersonic cruise missile possessing this advanced capability in the World providing an edge to the user with precise hit. The Indian Army is the first army in the World to have a regiment of supersonic cruise missile with advanced capabilities.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Mar 2009 17:28

Supersonic BrahMos successfully tested in Pokhran

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 29 Mar 2009 17:43

One thing I would like to clarify here since I'm not well versed with weapons induction procedure in the Army.

When it is declared that Brahmos - II is ready for induction into the army then why does another line towards the end of the article say that it will take 2 years to start delivery as per schedule , ir is it the time frame for delivering those 240 missiles.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 29 Mar 2009 19:15

The earlier version was 'from the Army Stock'. Does this then mean that Block I can be converted to Block II by a mere visit by BRAMHOS Ltd's engineers.
In that sense Block II can be actually deployed by IA in a short period of time.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 29 Mar 2009 19:21

Why can't we just take a few of them of AF-PAK area and see if "Haqqani" or "Baitullah" could be hit with the GPS coordinates of his home in the valley. It will be a good target practice incase of Indo-Pak war to target Kiyani's home...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Mar 2009 20:38

If you know where these yahoos are ................. leave the fun part to the Predators and let the Pakis deal with where the Predators took of from and landed.

I would like to test them in Tibet.

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Mar 2009 21:35

Gerard wrote:Supersonic BrahMos successfully tested in Pokhran

Does this mean that even the previous test was rejected by IA (the results were never declared) and the Brahmos people had to jump through the hoops for a third time?

Bharat · Post by **Bharat** » 29 Mar 2009 21:42

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/mar/ ... -again.htm

"The missile was successfully launched at 11.15 am and in the next two-and-a-half minutes, it hit the bull's eye in the Pokhran firing range in Rajasthan," an official said.

290 KM in 150 seconds translates to 2 Km/S.. around Mach 6..
So must we assume that this was not the 50Km test.. since 50Km at 150 seconds is real slow or it could be DDM . ..

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Mar 2009 22:03

Watch the video that has close up of BrahMos missile and look at the shape of the nacell at 0:41 minute mark. It may give you goose bumps.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/vide ... 330359.cms

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 29 Mar 2009 22:06

From the news report above "BRAHMOS hits the bulls eye"

The Brahmos vertical launch is the sexiest launch of any missile ever - with the nose tip stabilizers in action and the cap shooting off - Nirvana.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 29 Mar 2009 22:23

The Brahmos Nose Tip.
How is it different from the earlier version? Apart from being black in colour (Maybe a carbon composite tip - but to what benefit?) it looks similar.

Earlier nose tip.

^^^Ignore the sunburn

But please note: None of the missiles that we see on displays including at the R-Day parade are real missiles. They are dummy bodies.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 29 Mar 2009 22:38

p_saggu wrote:The Brahmos Nose Tip.
How is it different from the earlier version? Apart from being black in colour (Maybe a carbon composite tip - but to what benefit?) it looks similar.
But please note: None of the missiles that we see on displays including at the R-Day parade are real missiles. They are dummy bodies.

The models appear to have a perfect cone tip whereas the real missile appears to have a more typical convex profile.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Mar 2009 22:55

Look at the nacell behind the tip {shape of the circumference for air inlet).

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 29 Mar 2009 23:05

The diameter looks bigger, it does not seem to slope forwards like the display missiles. The picture is not exactly hi-quality and contours are not discernible.

What significance are you hinting at? The Brahmos team has said that it was not possible to have a strategic warhead inside because of the space concerns and sizes (of the current warheads). Arun saar, Is this what you indicate?

will the composition of the tip material be different if a SAR is on the nose tip?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 29 Mar 2009 23:06

Arun_S wrote:Look at the nacell behind the tip {shape of the circumference for air inlet).

Pure speculation onlee. Ability for internal antenna to Gimbal so that eyes are not taken off the target during top attack maneuver ?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 29 Mar 2009 23:07

Now I see it.
It is not circular, but rather octagonal (From what I can see). Radar invisibility? What if the whole body is made of carbon composite?
Will an AEGIS destroyer be able to pick it up?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Mar 2009 00:04

Also, note the sonic boom at 8s

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 30 Mar 2009 00:04

Arun_S wrote:Look at the nacell behind the tip {shape of the circumference for air inlet).

Arun, i'm not following what you are trying to see @ 0:41 (last second of the video), you can't make anything out in that.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 30 Mar 2009 04:55

From Times Of India: Army mum on BrahMos success