<I>>>Is the fact that India developed the guidance systemt testament to the accuracy of the Prithvi? </I><P>I beg to differ. Not withstanding excellent accuracy of Prithvi, the correct statement would be : <P>"Is the fact that India developed the guidance systemt testament to the <B>efficacy of control & accuracy of Akash</B>" <P>It is Akash missiles which enabled DRDO achieve mastry over, multi variate realtime optimization of :<BR>.. Ram-jet engine, <BR>.. flight dynamics & control, <BR>.. mission navigation, optimization & control<BR>.. Target acquistion & homing.<P>In my view Akash project is/was the most challenging project of all missiles in IGMDP. BhahMos apprently was the hidden next step of Akash. <BR><p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 12-06-2001).]
JEM your last question about what does this PJ-10 say about the Prithvi guidance? Its not clear yet in big picture terms. Because the P is a ballastic vehicle while the PJ-10 is a supersonic cruise vehicle. A whole different ball game. However both involve course corrections at high speed in terminal phase. What it does say is that there are remarkable advances in guidance made by the Indians that allow the vehicle to fly all those manouvers at such high speed. <P>It also means that the performance of the aerodynamic vehicles- Trishul, Akash, Nag and whatever will be very accurate and dependable. The terminal phase of the P/Dhanush and the A-II could also be improved as a result of these advances. Long winded answer but in short yes.
This is a major milestone for the Indian defense establishment. The third leg of the triad just became a credible possibility.<P>I am delighted that it can be used for conventional as well as nuclear payloads. Kudos to the scientists. Is this an exclusive navy oriented program? Hope not. Would it be possible to arm Su30MKIs or M2Ks with these babies?<BR>
>>http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WMRUS_ASHmis.htm<P>Above link gives entire history of the P-series. I figure this kitty is a mod- of<BR>the mighty P-1000 Vulkan a hypersonic heavy ASM that russia wanted to probably deploy on their bigger ships and subs.<P>At this rate, they should be relegating Uran<BR>to be fitted on harbour patrol boats, the<BR>admiral's private yacht and so on....<P>life for the PN and PLAN is just going to<BR>suck bigtime in a few years....<BR>
Interesting set of people who watched the test flight from the TOI report. For a system being touted as IN's MND foray, the IAF chief was the one that is present. Whats going on? Yet the reporters suggest that the test punctures the sole custodian arguement.<BR>Could it be the PJ-10 is also being evaluated for the IAF strike squadrons kind of more strings in the bow?<P>Also it clearly states its a Yakhont derivative. The guidance& controls were Indian. The seeker was not tested in this flight. I think the solid booster is 2m in length and is jettisoned so is not being mentioned as part of the 6.9m length.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ramana:<BR><B>Could it be the PJ-10 is also being evaluated for the IAF strike squadrons kind of more strings in the bow.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ramana<BR>Most definately. The IAF has been in the market for a while looking for this kind of stuff.<P>BTW, did u recieve my e-mail?<P>
OK, I just saw a video of the launch. The thing is in a pipe sort of launcher (S-300 type). Launches straight up, goes horizontal, almost seems like it's stalling, then two god-knows-what about a metre or so behind the nose shoots flames and jettisons and then the thing stabilises horizontally and off she goes. Someone make sense of that if you can. The stuff flying off the front end looked real neat.
maybe its some sort of protective condom for<BR>the sensitive nose during the launch?<P>with this in service, the prithvi pgm has<BR>no real selling point, it can be retired and<BR>the 333 reg issued this weapon instead?<P>also where does this leave Dhanush ? or <BR>is dhanush brahmos and the abortive launch<BR>was some sort of complicated cover the<BR>boys cooked up ? and sagarika I assume is the<BR>underwater launch system now....
<I>>> with this in service, the prithvi pgm has no real selling point, it can be retired and the 333 reg issued this weapon instead?</I><P>The emotional outburst does not stand objective scrutiny. <P>1. Does this pup take 1000Kg payload to pulverize TSP troop concentration ? No. <P>BTW there are indications that Prithvi is rated for 2000Kg payload but publicised for 1000Kg. as against ~300Kg for BrahMos.<P>2. Look at specs for Yakhont and you can see the missile range is ~120 km for lo-lo cruise flight profile (the most robust profile to interception) and ~280Km for Hi-Lo flight profile. <P>Compare this with ballistic speed and surprize of Prithvi 150/250/350. <BR> <BR>3. Robust delivery (inability to detect & intercept): <BR>BrahMos travels average speed 3 Mach, Prithvi travels at >5 Mach (avg). Depending on weather condition (vapor condensation) this missile can be visually seen all the way. This missile can also be seen in IR seeker all the way.<P>Conclusion: Prithvi is more robust.<P>4. Is it field proven and produced in mass ? No<P>What makes you think this missile should spercede Prithvi ? <P>As Ramana said in the other thread <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/003449-2.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/003449-2.html</A> quote:<P><B>"The thing is in the end you need all these to suit the threat or every problem looks like a nail if you have only a hammer!"<BR></B><BR>Cheers ..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LNS:<BR><B>Mig 27 upgrades. And if the Mig 27 can carry a Brahmos - Arrows will be a happy lot.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>May be two Mig-27s might be able to manage it together . It seems like a purely land based system in it's current form. Did anybody notice the relative size of it compared to the people standing next to it? It might be feasible for the navy Tu-22, if they are ever acquired. It seems a long shot even for the navy subs. May be future development will focus on reducing the size and weight off of it. <P>The launch did seem very unique. Nothing like the Tomahawk or anything else. <P><p>[This message has been edited by vverma (edited 12-06-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sam Malone:<BR><B>
<P>What are the various diameters of inner hulls of our current and "in-pipeline" subs?<BR>Originally posted by JE Menon:<BR>Launches straight up, goes horizontal, almost seems like it's stalling, then two god-knows-what about a metre or so behind the nose shoots flames and jettisons and then the thing stabilises horizontally and off she goes. Someone make sense of that if you can.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Designed for underwater submarine launches !! But, what was Tipnis doing there ?<P>
> Does this pup take 1000Kg payload to pulverize TSP troop concentration ?<P>True, but would you use a Prithvi that costs > 1 crore just to take out a few troops, assuming you are using conventional warheads? Probably not. BrahMos may not have a 1000 Kg payload, but is cheaper than the Prithvi. However, I dont know which has the better Re/kg. ratio. I suspect that it may be BrahMos. In that case, BrahMos seems a better choice.<P>>Compare this with ballistic speed<P>agreed.<P>>BrahMos travels average speed 3 Mach, <P>Does it really make a difference at those speeds? Though Mach 3 < Mach 5, it is nothing to be laughed at either. I don't think Pakistan has anything in its arsenal that can intercept a Mach 3 missile and neither does China.<P>>Conclusion: Prithvi is more robust<P>Perhaps. But not necessarily the best solution. I dont mean to knock Prithvi here, its more like a comparision between a Porsche and a Fiat... there are some cases where a Fiat is more useful (like for picking up your in-laws...)<P>>Is it field proven and produced in mass ?<P>Come on, the poor thing has just had only one test flight! At least give it time to mature itself.... this is like moaning that my child who has just learnt to walk cant beat Carl Lewis! <P><BR>------------------<BR><I>Allakh Niranjan!</I><p>[This message has been edited by Tanaji (edited 12-06-2001).]
So does BrahMos = Brah_Moskit?<P><BR>Nix that thought...just read the Pioneer editoroial. I guess it gets the name from the combination of <I>Brahmaputra</I> and <I>Moscow</I> rivers.<p>[This message has been edited by Div (edited 12-06-2001).]
Tipnis being these is probably just basic<BR>interest and courtesy. No real need to <BR>rake up imagined controversies.<P>I did not understand Arun_S arguments about<BR>prithvi being more suitable than PJ_10 for<BR>nuke delivery role. Our thermo nuke is <BR>about 400kg is it not ? and our fission<BR>device about 150-200 kg.<P>secondly, if this is obviously going to be<BR>on ships and future subs to be aimed primarily at the PRC, why should it not be<BR>a effective weapon against Pak ? Neither<BR>has anything (radar + advanced terminal defence) to guard against a mach3 CM. Pak<BR>cant even do anything about a mach2.5 Mig25<BR>flying in a 60kft. lets not imagine fangs<BR>where there are none.<P>Being "S-300ish" in size and packaging, this<BR>is probably a long shelf life item in a <BR>sealed container tube. much more flexible<BR>than prithvi and longer ranged too. <P>I would say it beats the prithvi hands down<BR>as a tactical weapon.<BR>
There must be no confusion about the various missiles in India's inventory.Prithvi has been meant to carry primarily a nuclear warhead,hence it's heavy payload.The tactical cruise missiles such as the Klub family,have very specific targets,such as ships,subs and land strike capabilities.One variant of the Klub has a supersonic terminal projectile.<P>The need has always existed for a fully supersonic cruise missile,more capable of evading ships defences,for the future,which the PJ-10/BrahMos test represents.One missing dimension is the diameter of the missile,which I hope Vishnu can obtain,which will then let us speculate whether a smaller nuclear warhead is also intended as one type of warhead for this missile and whether theb existing size of the torpedo tubes aboard our subs can carry it.From the evidence so far,it's main aim is in the anti-shipping role.Past speculation that the Yakhont,or a derivative of it was coming India's way almost confirms the fact that this missile is a relative of the Yakhont,coming as it does from the same (Yakhont)stable too.<P>The expected first submerged launch of Dhanush shows that another ballistic missile is meant to carry out the main second strike role of our nuclear deterrent,to be carried aboard the ATV.Since there seem to be some overlapping of the Klub anti-shipping missiles and the PJ-10,the Klubs may be caried on smaller sized warships with the PJ-10 being carried on newer destroyers and larger classes of frigates,most probably the P-17s and the follow on to the Delhi class.This missile will also obviously be carried by both the SU-30MKIs and possibly the MIG-29Ks aboard the carriers and the heavily hinted arrival of Akula 2s.A great development!<p>[This message has been edited by philip fowler (edited 12-06-2001).]
<I>>>True, but would you use a Prithvi that costs > 1 crore just to take out a few troops, assuming you are using conventional warheads? Probably not. BrahMos may not have a 1000 Kg payload, but is cheaper than the Prithvi</I><P>For stretegic/tactical nukes delivery assured delivery is prime factor, cost is secondary. Thus Prithvi is the way to go to get TSP strategic targets (fixed location)and tactical tactical targets command- control, armored thrust. <P><B>Rudra Singha:</B> BrahMos's nuke payload capability is not being questioned and is not the issue.<P>BrahMos is most suitable for tactical mobile and static targets with almost always conventional explosives. (ships, command control, radar/air-defence, ballistic missile launchers).<P>As they say in Industrial Engineering basics use specific tool for specifc tasks, yields desired result of required quality at optimal(not necessarily the lowest) cost.<p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 13-06-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JE Menon:<BR><B>... then two god-knows-what about a metre or so behind the nose shoots flames and jettisons and then the thing stabilises horizontally and off she goes. Someone make sense of that if you can. The stuff flying off the front end looked real neat.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The stuff flying off is most probably the covers for the air intakes for the ramjet. These have to be discarded for the ram air to come in.<P>By the way I could not launch the video, unsupported format, windows media player says<P>
great work indo-russo scientists!!<BR>i knew there was something fishy about that OSA test <P>not to throw a dampener on this great success but the yakhont is said to have a min range of 50km!!! is this the same as the PJ-10 missile? If so what other weapons can be incorporated to fill the buffer between main guns and missile (say 15-50 km where neither can reach)??<P>but keep up the great work scientists. Who knows, maybe one of these days we'll be seeing a indo-russian stealth bomber flying over bangalore
How many SSMs does India have?<P>Prithvi--for the army and airforce<P>Uran--Navy, for small ships<BR>Klub--Navy, for medium ships and subs<BR>Brahmos--Navy, for whom?<P>Dhanush--Navy, sea-launched Prithvi or?<BR>Sagarika--Navy, SLBM<P>All this in addition to the existing SSMs on Rajput class and Godavri Class.<P>Why do we need so many SSMs?<P>Also, who do we plan to sell the Brahmos to?A suggested customer list that India can sell it to: Iran (great), Vietnam (better still), Taiwan (wonderful)<P>Of course, Russia would like to sell it to Syria and Iraq as well, which may not be good for India if the US gets upset.
Saw the video, the interesting thing is that this is a "hot" VLS launch, compared to the exisiting cold launch for the existing Russian VLS systems (used on the Kirov class battlecruisers). <P>This means this VLS system is <B>not</B> designed for underwater submarine relase, which use a cold launch system.
I'm getting very confused with the different russian missiles and their nato codenames.<BR>eg. moskit, yakhont, sunburn(on milparade the ss-n-27 is the sunburn but corresponds to 2 russian missiles), klub.<BR>Could someone list the missiles, nato codenames, their ranges, payloads, stages/propulsion. <BR>thanks<BR>Darshan
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shyamala:<BR><B>It is based on Yakhont or Onyx system</B>.<BR>See: <A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/13home2.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/13home2.htm</A> <P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So what led to reduction in size? The guidance system?
AFM mag had a photo of a Su32 iirc with a <BR>Yokhont on ground near it (static display).<BR>both were huge, so both looked small!<P>the article said su3x could manage 3, Mig29M<BR>could take 2. but probably with a range penalty.<P>these are total waste as ASMs, Klub is enough. better to dedicate as land attack missiles.
The Hindu points out that the country has leap frogged to the supersonic cruise missile technology.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.indiaserver.com/hindu/stories/05142511.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiaserver.com/hindu/stories/05142511.htm</A>
Ramana<BR> nice article...<BR> where did the chinese get knowledge on how to make cruise missiles? is theres as good as ours, i remember people in this forum talking about DRDo having a underwater rig ready for firing SAgarika, i could the rig have been finished on time to fire the Brahmos...
the worlds most prominent user of cruise missiles seems to have sacrificed raw speed<BR>first for range and now stealth. this is a <BR>good strategy if one wants 2000-3000km range<BR>within a small <15ft (5m) package like the<BR>T_Hawk. I saw a photo in AWST of a boeing ALCMs being mounted on the rotary launcher of<BR>a B_52 and these were black and "wedge shaped" like the Scalp so they have RAM and shaped stealth now.<P>So we face a decision point. Given the speed<BR>of this baby (Mach3) and the need to keep its<BR>size small enough to fit it on trucks / ships / subs, we cannot just lash a bigger fuel tank on it and extend the range. Probably maxes out around 400-500km with some experimentation as that was Granit's range.<P>We can approach the 2000-3000km needed range<BR>for "true" sub based deterrence in many ways:<P>find out the lowest operating speed of the Ramjet engine (mach1.5 ? N to comment) and fly this kitty at this lower speed to conserve fuel.<P>fly a lo-hi-lo thru thinner air<BR>instead of lo-lo profile. <P>get the Kh-555s economical turbofan engine<BR>(the crown jewel of russian CM design) and<BR>fir it into a similar missile. I think only<BR>a turbofan will suffice for economical 500kmph cruise. call it PJ_11 if you will.<P>I think whatever option one takes, work must<BR>begin ASAP on getting this baby out to 1500-2000km range...else IN Kilos will be<BR>caught in lobster nets in Bo_Hai bay trying to get close to beijing!<P>PRC is reported to have taken the 3rd option<BR>and just hired a bunch of Kh-55 people. their<BR>first CM the HN-1 Iirc was tested around 1990 with a CEP of 1km and nuke payload. they are<BR>onto HN-3 now with Kh-55 range...so as in<BR>civilian rocket launch they are 10-15 yrs further along the cycle. They are also making<BR>C-8xx while we are only importing Urans and Klubs now.<P>we must seize the initiative and settle the<BR>detterence issue for all time to come. India<BR>deserves it, Indians deserve it and BR too.<BR>
<BR>Any ideas what exactly the multiple warhead capability means ? Hopefully its not a mis-labeling of the ability to carry various type of warheads!<P>If not, what then ? Cluster muitions ? Independent terminal guidance to each warhead to make it more difficult to counter and improve probability of doing _some_ damage ? <P>Anybody know of a similar feature in other land attack missiles? <P>very intriguing ...<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by agupta:<BR><B><BR>Any ideas what exactly the multiple warhead capability means ? Hopefully its not a mis-labeling of the ability to carry various type of warheads!<P>If not, what then ? Cluster muitions ? Independent terminal guidance to each warhead to make it more difficult to counter and improve probability of doing _some_ damage ? <P>Anybody know of a similar feature in other land attack missiles? <P>very intriguing ...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>thats a good point, what does multiple warhead mean...i know in ICBM, they have multiple warheads on one missile, to increase the chanses of a hit..and also to store fake warheads (for stuff like star wars), also the multiwar heads are used in ICBM as tactical, so when the things a blazing down they all aim to be in different parts of the target country to neutralize key points like missile silos..etc....<BR>
Dear All:<BR>Theres a photo-feature ... including a grab of the launcher at our homepage <A HREF="http://www.ndtv.com/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.ndtv.com/</A> <P>Thanks<BR>Vishnu<P><BR>
Very good feature from NDTV. Thank you.<BR>It looks like the ignition is done after the missile is hurled out of the VLS. How is it done?<BR>The orientation of the missile is done by another thrust source at the top of the missile. Anybody can explain?
That's probably the nose cover ejecting to reveal the nose intake that will allow air to flow to the ramjet. This lends support to the PJ-10 = Yahkont theory. The missile <I>does</I> resemble the Yakhont in Vishnu's clips.
Super video grabs of the launch on NDTV. The sequence seems to be:<P>1)Vertical launch<BR>2)Rocket fires to tilt the missile to one side<BR>3)Secondary rockets fire to stop/steady the tilt/rotation probably to prevent somersaulting of the missile.<BR>4)Nose cone blasts off. Something else also blasts off about now - seen in a later film, and the mid-body aerodynamic surfaces begin to deploy about now.<BR>5)The absence of big "wings" suggests that lift is provided by high speed and the body itself and whatever small, low drag aerodynamic surfaces there are.
<I>>>If the two sideways thrusts are for manouvering, what significance does this this have on terminal manouvers? How does it compare to vectored ramjet output?</I><P>The sideway thrusters are for sharp attitude change during launch (when the speed is very low) that is impossible to do with main thurster (which I belive do not have Thrust Vector capability) and the tiny winglets.<P>Once at supersonic speed, such sharp manouvers(~40 degree/sec) are impossible to perform (w.r.t. structural integrity and flight control) and anyway at supersonic speed the small wings/fins along with the fuselage can provide significant manuvering force. BTW a 3G turn at supersonic speed does not alter the trajectary very dramatically. <P><p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 14-06-2001).]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest