Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 04 Jan 2020 10:01

^^^
Any background on what this is? TIA.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Jan 2020 10:09

Is it like the CBU-97 munition? A missile, guided by INS/GPS, arrives at a target area and releases a bunch of these 10 Kg submunitions, each of which is independently guided via an IR sensor. Anti armor/soft-vehicles.

I think Dr. Satheesh Reddy once talked about a weapon like this

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 04 Jan 2020 10:16

abhik wrote:^^^
Any background on what this is? TIA.

Multiple of these would be released by a conventional missile, say 6-10 by a prithvi, to take out multiple targets.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Jan 2020 10:22

If its a 10 Kg warhead, probably 40 - 50 of these could be carried by a Prithvi class missile. More than the weight, I guess the available space & form factor will be the constraint

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2020 11:06

Prem Kumar wrote:If its a 10 Kg warhead, probably 40 - 50 of these could be carried by a Prithvi class missile. More than the weight, I guess the available space & form factor will be the constraint

From the internet, 2018:

Missile Launched Precision Guided Munition(MLPGM) using IIR and MMW seekers developed for Nag Program. The name MLPGM is given because it can be fitted inside a tactical ballistic missile and release it from a favorable altitude. Multiple nos of it can be fitted inside a mother ballistic missile as payload and released during pre terminal stages, then the multiple MLPGM will independently seek, acquire, pursue and home on the targets. The mmw based PGM is already in testing and can be launched from UAVs.

The warhead pic:

https://drdo.gov.in/sites/default/files ... 18_web.pdf

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 04 Jan 2020 11:06

Prem Kumar wrote:If its a 10 Kg warhead, probably 40 - 50 of these could be carried by a Prithvi class missile. More than the weight, I guess the available space & form factor will be the constraint

The warhead would be 10 KG, the PGM is dimensionally similar to NAG/SANT. Which means around 35-40 kg. Also volumetric concerns means not too many can be carried.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Jan 2020 12:57

^^^
Someone has changed the label

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2020 13:20

Not too sure, but, I think they both are the same missile. When used as a dedicated anti-tank, it is called SANT and while used as - as best as I can describe it - clustered anti-tank/whatever, they are called MLPGM.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 04 Jan 2020 17:00

Both MLPGM & SANT uses mmW seeker in single mode or when employs dual mode will retain mmW seeker.

SANT launched from aircraft; MLPGM from Tactical Ballistic Missile like Prithvi. So both are air-lauched.

While it may appear as very new, it goes far back to period when Prithvi missile was operationalized or even further back.

It could be said that, DRDO developed SAAW missile & GBU- SDB bomb are its cousins.

But the close match is the Brimstone missile when operates in mmW seeker mode can scan & pick targets on its own. It is particularly meant for against mass tank/armour formations.
Tank operates in formation employing many units. Ability & success of Brimstone to take out such *manoeuvring* mass formation of tanks/armoured vehicles like the one we witnessed in WWII, led them to deploy against mass swarm boat attacks.

Perhaps we can expect that MLPGM, when multiple units of which are released from Prithvi like TBM, exhibit such characteristics of tackling mass formations.

Compared to anti-tank Cluster bombs like CBU-105 that we procured which is also meant for mass armoured thrust, MLPGM like PGM will be far more effective in target discrimination & destruction & will be more suitable in neutralizing manoeuvring mass attacks compared to CBU-105 type cluster bombs.

So design-wise, MLPGM & SANT are twin brothers. They may differ in certain aspects & weight. MLPGM may be lighter, just my thought.

Video & discission on Brimstone & SANT from previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7675&start=1560

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Jan 2020 19:50

Having a ballistic missile/rocket based warheads have the twin advantage of:

(1) Carrying more warheads to defeat massed attacks
(2) Using our rocket artillery as a way of stopping armored thrusts

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jan 2020 03:27

Prithvi warhead option

Although the MLPGM, a full missile in its own right, will be the first to be put into another missile warhead. Typically, they are much simpler submunition type.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jan 2020 11:38

If it can target Armour if released from a Prithvi it can target secondary non bomb proof shelters based stuff PA artillery bases and PAF airbases. For example fuel storages , auxiliary vehicles, weapons storage, radar masts , ATC control room, communication antennas , SAM vehicles, Zsu Vehicles etc.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Jan 2020 17:35

nam wrote: You have to give it to the youtube boys.

The page on DRDO must have been created months back. As soon as someone notices it, it gets put on twitter, then on to defence forums.

And voila, next is youtube video on "Everything about XRSAM"

All of these based on one section of DRDO, with a really bad screenshot image

http://www.deagel.com/library1/small/20 ... 200047.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 19_077.jpg

The Barak 8 ER has been in existence since 2009. The Israelis needed someone to fund the completion of the development.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jan 2020 18:46

Yeap Israeli navy has no need for ER and ER has ABM capabilities. To early to determine its full capabilities but it could be on par or better than Aster 30 blk 2.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 08 Jan 2020 19:26

John wrote:Yeap Israeli navy has no need for ER and ER has ABM capabilities. To early to determine its full capabilities but it could be on par or better than Aster 30 blk 2.

Why would DRDO fund Barack er when xrsam is in advance stage

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jan 2020 19:36

Raghunathgb wrote:
John wrote:Yeap Israeli navy has no need for ER and ER has ABM capabilities. To early to determine its full capabilities but it could be on par or better than Aster 30 blk 2.
Why would DRDO fund Barack er when xrsam is in advance stage

Not sure if XR SAM is based on Barak 8 ER, first stage looks like Barak 8. We might be continuing its development. Still too early to tell.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 Jan 2020 20:13

Looks like NOTAM issued between 19-21 Jan for 1700 - 3500 Kms. K4?

https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/12 ... 8273473536

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 08 Jan 2020 21:37

John wrote:
Raghunathgb wrote: Why would DRDO fund Barack er when xrsam is in advance stage
Not sure if XR SAM is based on Barak 8 ER, first stage looks like Barak 8. We might be continuing its development. Still too early to tell.

Design influence may be there but definatly not a barak 8 with boosters on.The close coupled jet vanes and fins has been influenced by AAD missile which would mean it's altogether a different missile.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jan 2020 21:43

Raghunathgb wrote:
John wrote: Not sure if XR SAM is based on Barak 8 ER, first stage looks like Barak 8. We might be continuing its development. Still too early to tell.
Design influence may be there but definatly not a barak 8 with boosters on.The close coupled jet vanes and fins has been influenced by AAD missile which would mean it's altogether a different missile.

It doesn't make sense to fit in a booster to extend range if the first stage is entirely new missile. Anyway we will see when details emerge.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jan 2020 22:14

I have a question. I see the booster on XRSAM and Barak ER. Wouldn't that make the launch tubes wider? Is it not better to design the missile and the booster of the same diameter, with the missile being sightly shorter and wider than current and the booster being taller and slimmer than current?

nam · Post by **nam** » 08 Jan 2020 22:54

This is my guess: Barak8 is almost the same weight as a BVR, yet is able to reach close to 100KM launched from ground. It is actually a fabulous design.

I feel the reason it is slim and longer is it provide a longer burn time of the propellant, compared to a bit larger diameter missile. Given the weight management done, it does not require large thrust motor. This has allowed them to fast launch speed and longer flight duration.

If the diameter is increased, thereby increasing weight, the thrust may not be sufficient when fired from the ground. You may also need a heavier booster, because of the weight increase.

On the other side, in the [proposed design the booster needs to propel a weight optimized, slim Barak8. The light weight also allows longer coasting phase. The launcher may increase in size, but you extract that phenomenal range out a low weight missile.

I am still not able to believe that such a slim missile with a booster can have a range of 250KM! Looks at Chinese & Russian long range missile. It is fat as hell! They must be getting their range, by flying very high and then coasting.

Barak does not need to fly that high.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jan 2020 23:06

Slim or fat has nothing to do with it. Missiles are designed with a desired target, performance, warhead, and cannister/launcher constraints in mind. A larger diameter missile is at an advantage when targeting at very long ranges because of the seeker diameter since it is expected that eventually it would be used for OTH targeting. But there are certainly way to boost up a slimmer missile for medium to long range attack depending upon the target. Lofted profile is one obvious one which is a given for most extended range shots for aero targets. Against targets where you need a PIP..you extend performance and even range by investing in better seekers and better discrimination - that way you can get a range and performance increase without any changes to the kinematics of the interceptor.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Jan 2020 01:12

Another demonstration of SAM working in the real world, for those who are having wet dreams of having layered/interlocking air defence consisting of S-400, Akash, Barak-8, QRSAM, NASAM etc (because apparently it will make the enemy’s life difficult).
viewtopic.php?p=2405806#p2405806

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2020 01:15

Indranil wrote:I have a question. I see the booster on XRSAM and Barak ER. Wouldn't that make the launch tubes wider? Is it not better to design the missile and the booster of the same diameter, with the missile being sightly shorter and wider than current and the booster being taller and slimmer than current?

Maybe the fat booster is a quick development of the XRSAM.
The final version will be like you say.
The fat booster is to get the missile up to altitude quickly.
Once the system is proven they might revert.
The fat booster looks like K15 or Shourya half stage.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Jan 2020 01:38

The second stage may also have to coast for large distances (over 200+ km?) at max ranges, it needs to be as aerodynamic. Also a lot of the 2-stage SAMs that are actually in service have the second stage derived from a shorter range design.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2020 01:58

Quite right

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Jan 2020 02:16

Indranil wrote:I have a question. I see the booster on XRSAM and Barak ER. Wouldn't that make the launch tubes wider? Is it not better to design the missile and the booster of the same diameter, with the missile being sightly shorter and wider than current and the booster being taller and slimmer than current?

When karanM showed me that picture like couple of months ago maybe, for the first time, I had exact same thought - the booster is too fat for the missile. I can't think of which requirement is driving that diameter. May be they want to use the existing B8 missile as it is. Maybe there is some restriction on the total length which forces the designer to pack the required amount of solid fuel in the larger dia booster. Just guessing. Making thicker canisters would be much more cost effective than designing all new missile.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2020 02:29

And maybe the booster module is available?

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jan 2020 03:16

IMO Barak 8 ER and XR SAM are different missiles however both use Barak 8 and have different booster to meet their specs. ER could be adopted by navy and latter by AF but both using same Barak 8 launch platforms.

nam · Post by **nam** » 09 Jan 2020 03:27

XRSAM seems to be Barak8/LRSAM with our booster. It seem to have the thrust divert-er like the one we see on AAD. It is fine to use Barak8, as we can put place a 250KM version on our P15A/B.

However i will be very interested to know how they will manage to get 250KM with such a simple set up. May be the 2nd stage on XRSAM is a bigger/taller version of LRSAM.

The difference with russian/chinese long range, is that our design seem to be created to allow us carry lot more rounds.

Whatever be the case, i want DRDO to start testing it soon. If using LRSAM with a booster reduces time, so be it..

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Jan 2020 04:45

K4 Test on 20.01.2020 morning off the Visakhapatnam Cost.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2020 06:36

Fast implementation using existing building blocks I understand. That Barak8 is slimmer hence less drag, that part I don't understand. Assuming a pencil thin missile has the lowest L/D (because the missile has a significant coasting phase) is not true, especially for the slenderness ratio that we are speaking of.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2020 06:49

ramana wrote: The fat booster looks like K15 or Shourya half stage.

It is definitely not from K15 or Shaurya. Actually, the booster is new which is frankly not a big deal for DRDO now. They built a booster for VLAstra and another for SFDR and did not even talk about it. They have passed that hump.

I think what they are reusing is the TVC control of AAD/Ashwin. So the booster body could also be a truncated AAD. But the fins on the body of the booster are different from the AAD (it has to be).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2020 07:00

dinesha wrote:K4 Test on 20.01.2020 morning off the Visakhapatnam Cost.

Wonder if its an operation test from the new boat?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Jan 2020 08:31

Indranil wrote:I think what they are reusing is the TVC control of AAD/Ashwin. So the booster body could also be a truncated AAD. But the fins on the body of the booster are different from the AAD (it has to be).

Since the time when VLR-SAM was announced 5 years back, the rumour has been that it was a spinoff from AAD.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Jan 2020 12:34

Raghunathgb wrote:Design influence may be there but definatly not a barak 8 with boosters on.The close coupled jet vanes and fins has been influenced by AAD missile which would mean it's altogether a different missile.

AAD is sub optimal for Anti Aircraft role. It is skid to turn optimized for missile interception whereas Barak 8 has bank to turn optimized for aircraft interception. The graphic released by DRDO seems to be a Barak-8ER

Indranil wrote:I have a question. I see the booster on XRSAM and Barak ER. Wouldn't that make the launch tubes wider? Is it not better to design the missile and the booster of the same diameter, with the missile being sightly shorter and wider than current and the booster being taller and slimmer than current?

For the Barak, different launch tubes are required.

Typically adding a booster saves development time and effort for a new missile. The Aster 30 adds a booster to the Aster 15. The SM-2 Block 4, SM-3 and SM-6 all have oversized boosters.

Why redesign a new missile when adding a booster adds the incremental range to an already qualified missile.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jan 2020 12:38

Its not a Barak-ER, well not the Barak-ER displayed by IAI anyhow. Our model is a more fleshed out one, with TVC vanes and several control surfaces beyond what the IAI models showed.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Jan 2020 14:00

ramana wrote:
dinesha wrote:K4 Test on 20.01.2020 morning off the Visakhapatnam Cost.
Wonder if its an operation test from the new boat?

Period: 2020-01-19T06:30:00.000Z - 2020-01-21T10:30:00.000Z

click image to enlarge..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Jan 2020 15:43

https://youtu.be/WMKGNKfrpmQ

Print is reporting that domestic ABM is ready for deployment. Govt sanction required.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Jan 2020 16:44

Why there is no news on Nirbhay? We have no testing etc for a long long time.