Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11203
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gagan » 29 Jan 2010 13:16

Singha wrote:was the nirbhay model shown of 21" or 23" diameter?

if that was the case, I would favour the theory of a tube launched SLCM for deployment on all SSK.


21" translates to 0.5 m diameter roughly.
Possible torpedo tube launched LACM test from a Kilo class.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby merlin » 29 Jan 2010 14:22

tejas wrote:Doesn't the Jag have a built in Laser designator and marked target seeker in the nose?


I don't think so. It will probably be a laser rangefinder and not a designator. The marked target seeker should be correct.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby tejas » 29 Jan 2010 20:15

^^^ You are right boss. The Jag has a Ferranti laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Shalav » 29 Jan 2010 21:42

It looks like a Jaguar IB 2 seat trainer version. It does not have the laser designator/range finder.

The red pod on the port wing outer pylon could be the designator / range finder? I have no idea what that is.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 29 Jan 2010 21:47

some of the last production run 2-seat jags (of the 17+20 run) were rumoured (or confirmed ?) to be dedicated PGM delivery platforms. this could be one of those.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3417
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 29 Jan 2010 21:59

Seeker is different from "Sudarshan" pic - means a different program.

Good picture. Whats the red payload on the jag?

Gagan wrote:From LIVEFIST: IAF / DRDO's Laser Guided Bomb Trial.
Image
Pic only no accompanying article

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Jan 2010 00:56

Gagan wrote:III-SL will have to be tested from land based water tank first. Followed by the pontoon launcher.

Only then will it be tested off a sub. I guess.

But surely no direct test off a sub on the first go.

My guess is
1. Nirbhay
2. Brahmos
3. Sagarika


Taking that argument further rules out Nirbhay as well. If there is such a missile in development, I'd think they will test a land based version first.

I dont think any of our current subs (excluding Arihant) have vertical launch tubes - so that would rule out Sagarika as well (unless some retrofitting has been done in one of the subs).

That leaves Brahmos as the only logical choice.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jan 2010 01:01

how would you fire brahmos without VLS ?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Jan 2010 01:16

Gagan wrote:
Singha wrote:was the nirbhay model shown of 21" or 23" diameter?

if that was the case, I would favour the theory of a tube launched SLCM for deployment on all SSK.


21" translates to 0.5 m diameter roughly.
Possible torpedo tube launched LACM test from a Kilo class.


Wouldnt it make more sense to mate a long range LACM with an SSN rather than an SSK? Not saying we shouldnt do the latter - but that would not be priority #1.

From Wikipedia

Akula torpedo tube dimensions:

4x533mm torpedo tubes (plus 6 external 533mm tubes on Improved Akulas and Akula II's)
4x650mm torpedo tubes storage space for up to forty torpedoes/mines/missiles

Kilo:
6x553mm torpedo tubes

So, a 21 inch (533mm) Nirbhay would fit into both Kilo and Akula. However if it is 23 inch, its only meant for the Akula. Interestingly the dimensions of the Type 53-65 torpedo used in the Kilo is also 21 inch. Some coincidence :P

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Jan 2010 01:29

Rahul M wrote:how would you fire brahmos without VLS ?


Brahmos in our existing ships are fired from an inclined launcher, not VLS per my understanding. My assumption was that Brahmos would be launched from the submarine torpedo tube.

Some fact checking:

Brahmos: length 8.4m. Dia: 600mm
Type 53-65 torpedo (in Kilo): length 7.2m. Dia: 533mm
Kilo torpedo tube dia: 553mm

So, my earlier conclusion was wrong - if the test was done from a Kilo torpedo tube, it couldnt have been the Brahmos. Unless some retro-fitting was done (in which case, it could very well have been the Sagarika as well :D). Back to square one.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11203
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gagan » 30 Jan 2010 01:42

The likelyhood of a Nirbhay being tested are indeed large.

The Nirbhay is the only thing that can be slimmed down to be fired off a Kilo Tropedo tube (If the Nirbhay is 21" and can fit in the 533mm tube). Or at least a modified Kilo with a couple of 650mm tubes.

The Brahmos could also be tube fired, but all the renderings we've seen display a VLS fired. Besides it'll need the 650mm tube (BRAHMOS dia 0.6m)
The Sagarika of course is only VLS fired.

IN doesn't have a VLS firing sub that we know of yet.

So I ask again - does any panwallah mention IN acquring a Sub on lease from Russia which has a VLS for test firing? Other wise this is probably a Nirbhay or less likely a Brahmos.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11203
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gagan » 30 Jan 2010 01:43

How difficult is it for DRDO to:

Lakshya + Brahmos seeker + lotsa Jugaad = Nirbhay LACM.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jan 2010 02:05

So, my earlier conclusion was wrong - if the test was done from a Kilo torpedo tube, it couldnt have been the Brahmos. Unless some retro-fitting was done (in which case, it could very well have been the Sagarika as well :D). Back to square one.
see, you got my point without my help ! :D

strange thing is that this news has not been reported anywhere else.

___________________________________
interview with Dr Pillai. http://www.brahmand.com/news/BRAHMOS-Th ... /1/30.html

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jan 2010 02:05

Gagan wrote:How difficult is it for DRDO to:

Lakshya + Brahmos seeker + lotsa Jugaad = Nirbhay LACM.

lakshya yinjin /= nirbhay yinjin.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Jan 2010 02:20

Rahul M wrote:
So, my earlier conclusion was wrong - if the test was done from a Kilo torpedo tube, it couldnt have been the Brahmos. Unless some retro-fitting was done (in which case, it could very well have been the Sagarika as well :D). Back to square one.
see, you got my point without my help ! :D

strange thing is that this news has not been reported anywhere else.

___________________________________
interview with Dr Pillai. http://www.brahmand.com/news/BRAHMOS-Th ... /1/30.html


Yep - I was wrong, though not for the reason you mentioned. But your question indeed prompted me to check facts. I feel that DRDO will try to create a torpedo launched Brahmos for subs. As Gagan also mentions above, none of our subs barring Arihant have VLS tubes. Given that we are acquiring Akula with its 650mm torpedo tubes (which can accommodate a Brahmos), it will make sense to try and create a torpedo-launched version, rather than try to create VLS cells within existing subs (which might not even be possible).

Its a wonder that the GTRE shoots for the Kaveri, yet is unable to make an engine for Nirbhay!! One more factor that might be holding back Nirbhay is the question of guidance over a 1000KM range for a terrain-hugging missile. It would need a different kind of seeker than the one for Brahmos (the Brahmos seeker might be used just for terminal guidance). While its happily flying over the Himalayas, it would need a video camera to capture the images and the processor needs to number-crunch this against the pre-loaded Cartosat-2 images. Quite a challenging problem, when we think about it.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jan 2010 02:33

Yep - I was wrong, though not for the reason you mentioned.
how do you know that ? :lol: torpedo tube width was the very reason I mentioned it. we have had these discussions on BR earlier.
Given that we are acquiring Akula with its 650mm torpedo tubes (which can accommodate a Brahmos), it will make sense to try and create a torpedo-launched version, rather than try to create VLS cells within existing subs (which might not even be possible).

have you any idea how monstrous 650 mm torps are ? :eek: it will be near impossible to carry any reasonable number on our medium sized subs. we don't even use 650 mm torps. no one other than RuN uses them AFAIK. VLS is the only way for brahmos unless we want to restrict it to the chakra, if at all it can fit in the chakra's tube.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5016
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 Jan 2010 05:30

Gagan wrote:From LIVEFIST: IAF / DRDO's Laser Guided Bomb Trial.
Image
Pic only no accompanying article


very interesting pic..no Litening LDP although we know that its integrated on the Jag-IB..could it be that a second aircraft was lasing the target ? the red pod doesn't seem big enough to be a LDP, and we don't have any except the ATLIS and Litening in IAF service and this red pod is neither of those..some pod for instrumentation/data collection possibly ? Also, the new LGB kit looks very different from anything else on the market- the fins are very distinct. Will make it very easy to spot and identify as indigenous. Sudarshan looked different, but maybe they changed configuration sometime in between when the earlier picture of the Sudarshan was published in the DRDO journal. Is this the Sudarshan ?

Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Naidu » 30 Jan 2010 06:06

Can some guru(s) comment on the long and sharp nose on the LGB being launched from the Jaguar? Is it a deep penetrator round? Or is that a typical profile/shape for a LG munition? Also, can this guidance kit be attached to any "dumb" munition to turn into a LGB? Thanks!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 30 Jan 2010 07:18

Naidu wrote:Can some guru(s) comment on the long and sharp nose on the LGB being launched from the Jaguar? Is it a deep penetrator round? Or is that a typical profile/shape for a LG munition? Also, can this guidance kit be attached to any "dumb" munition to turn into a LGB? Thanks!



That is the typical profile/shape.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 30 Jan 2010 07:21

Kartik wrote: Also, the new LGB kit looks very different from anything else on the market- the fins are very distinct.


There is a lot of wing surface area there. Should be able to glide quite a bit. The other possibility is that big wings will make it work better on targets above 10,000 feet a feature that was not required when the Paveway was designed for use in various sea-level wars.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 30 Jan 2010 07:50

Prem Kumar wrote:
Rahul M wrote:how would you fire brahmos without VLS ?


Brahmos in our existing ships are fired from an inclined launcher, not VLS per my understanding. My assumption was that Brahmos would be launched from the submarine torpedo tube.

Some fact checking:

Brahmos: length 8.4m. Dia: 600mm
Type 53-65 torpedo (in Kilo): length 7.2m. Dia: 533mm
Kilo torpedo tube dia: 553mm

So, my earlier conclusion was wrong - if the test was done from a Kilo torpedo tube, it couldnt have been the Brahmos. Unless some retro-fitting was done (in which case, it could very well have been the Sagarika as well :D). Back to square one.

Brahmos is too large even for the 650 mm torpedo tubes and there are no plans for tube launch variant, hence all variant excepts for air launch Brahmos are stored in pressurized canister after assembly (cold launch).

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11203
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gagan » 30 Jan 2010 10:02

But there is a sub launched BRAHMOS envisoned.

I think the entire cannister will be ejected from the VLS or the torpedo tube by a gas generator, will come to the surface where the front end will come off and the Ramjet will ignite.

AFAIK, there is a problem with water entering the engine exhausts which will lead to a failure of a sub launched missile. The workaround in the past was, the missile ascending within an airbubble to the surface, now I guess the whole cannister is pushed out of the water.

Won't a 600mm dia BRAHMOS with a cannister be ~650mm?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16926
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jan 2010 11:14

all our torpedo tubes (except a couple on the the leased akula) are 533mm MAX.
have any of the russian 650 mm tubes ever been used for firing the yakhont or similar missiles ? the answer is NO, the RuN uses the custom built SS-N-16 instead.
so, WHY are we discussing firing a 600mm+ diameter brahmos(much larger if we consider the fins ?) from 533mm torpedo tubes ? :x

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 31 Jan 2010 00:33

Gagan wrote:Won't a 600mm dia BRAHMOS with a cannister be ~650mm?

The canister is 700 mm in diameter,

Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Bheem » 31 Jan 2010 09:11

Is there a rocket booster motor between the distinct rear fins of the LGB?

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3417
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 31 Jan 2010 10:47

Kartik wrote:
Gagan wrote:From LIVEFIST: IAF / DRDO's Laser Guided Bomb Trial.
Image
Pic only no accompanying article


very interesting pic..no Litening LDP although we know that its integrated on the Jag-IB..could it be that a second aircraft was lasing the target ? the red pod doesn't seem big enough to be a LDP, and we don't have any except the ATLIS and Litening in IAF service and this red pod is neither of those..some pod for instrumentation/data collection possibly ? Also, the new LGB kit looks very different from anything else on the market- the fins are very distinct. Will make it very easy to spot and identify as indigenous. Sudarshan looked different, but maybe they changed configuration sometime in between when the earlier picture of the Sudarshan was published in the DRDO journal. Is this the Sudarshan ?


The laser designator could be on the other wing, though that definitely isnt the best place to carry it since it will potentially limit the field of view. That said, i doubt the bomb is being lased from another aircraft, as that will unnecessarily complicate the test.

The red store is a mystery. Possibly a camera to watch the separation of the LGB.

Sudarshan indeed looks different, possibly the picture showed the incomplete unit without the laser seeker in the front.

We need more details on this I am afraid.

Anantz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 13:33
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Anantz » 31 Jan 2010 14:37

lakshya yinjin /= nirbhay yinjin.


Hey guys I was comparing the Lakshya's indeginous engine and the jet engine used in the Tomahawk cruise missile. These are the figures for both the engines as per wiki and an old Hindu article on PTAE-7 (used in the Lakshya PTA)

PTAE-7 (Lakshya) F-107 (Tomahawk)
Thrust (KN) 3.72 3.1
SFC (Kg/Kgf/Hr) 1.15 0.682
Length (mm) 1270 1262
Diameter (mm) 330 305
Weight (Kg) 65 66.2


From the looks of it we very much have the engine capable of powering the Nirbhay. We already have the required knowledge on Cruise missile tech mainly due to knowledge sharing through the Brahmos project. The biggest problem I think is the software to program through the terrain hugging flight profile for the 1000+ km flight regime. Once that is overcome, its good to go, i guess

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 01 Feb 2010 01:27

Indian Army to Procure Quick Reaction SAM
To secure its skies from enemy fighter aircraft and cruise missiles, the Indian Army is planning to procure more quick reaction surface to air missiles (QR-SAMs) from global vendors. In a Request for Information (RFI) issued yesterday, without mentioning the number of systems to be procured, the Army has asked the vendors to provide missile systems which have a range of over nine kilometres and are capable of taking on aircraft or missiles at an altitude of up to six kilometres.

The Army is seeking a QR-SAM capable of being launched within six seconds and taking on hovering helicopters also. It wants the new systems to have the ability of firing two missiles at a time and simultaneously guide them to the desired targets. The Army has reportedly placed orders for four squadrons of SPYDER QR-SAMs from Israel. The DRDO is also working on the development of a home grown QR-SAM system and planning to co-develop it with a foreign partner.

The RFI states the missile system should be capable of operating in the electronic warfare environment and should be provided with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare protection system. The Army wants its new systems to be highly mobile and capable of being moved on rail-based platforms besides being mobile in desert and semi-desert terrain. It also wants the vendors to do a transfer of technology to Indian firms so that the missile system can be later on produced in India also. Global missile manufacturers including MBDA of France and Israeli Rafale are expected to offer their systems to the Army.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1643
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sid » 01 Feb 2010 03:16

Kartik wrote:Also, the new LGB kit looks very different from anything else on the market- the fins are very distinct. Will make it very easy to spot and identify as indigenous. Sudarshan looked different, but maybe they changed configuration sometime in between when the earlier picture of the Sudarshan was published in the DRDO journal. Is this the Sudarshan ?


nop, its in most probability local copy of GBU-10 Paveway 2. It looks different due to merging background, paint scheme and its fins (which i assume are still in process of opening).

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54168
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 01 Feb 2010 05:20

Israelis had their own version of the weapon.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7393
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nachiket » 01 Feb 2010 09:10

Craig Alpert wrote:Indian Army to Procure Quick Reaction SAM
To secure its skies from enemy fighter aircraft and cruise missiles, the Indian Army is planning to procure more quick reaction surface to air missiles (QR-SAMs) from global vendors. In a Request for Information (RFI) issued yesterday, without mentioning the number of systems to be procured, the Army has asked the vendors to provide missile systems which have a range of over nine kilometres and are capable of taking on aircraft or missiles at an altitude of up to six kilometres.

The Army is seeking a QR-SAM capable of being launched within six seconds and taking on hovering helicopters also. It wants the new systems to have the ability of firing two missiles at a time and simultaneously guide them to the desired targets. The Army has reportedly placed orders for four squadrons of SPYDER QR-SAMs from Israel. The DRDO is also working on the development of a home grown QR-SAM system and planning to co-develop it with a foreign partner.

The RFI states the missile system should be capable of operating in the electronic warfare environment and should be provided with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare protection system. The Army wants its new systems to be highly mobile and capable of being moved on rail-based platforms besides being mobile in desert and semi-desert terrain. It also wants the vendors to do a transfer of technology to Indian firms so that the missile system can be later on produced in India also. Global missile manufacturers including MBDA of France and Israeli Rafale are expected to offer their systems to the Army.


QR-SAMs are nice to have. But why aren't we looking at long range systems like the much feared S-300 and the new S-400? If the enemy has decent standoff weapons the QR-SAM systems might not stand much of a chance. The BARAK-NG seems to be some way off and even that isn't in the same class as the S-400.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 01 Feb 2010 09:57

nachiket wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote:Indian Army to Procure Quick Reaction SAM
............<SNIP>.....QR-SAMs are nice to have. But why aren't we looking at long range systems like the much feared S-300 and the new S-400? If the enemy has decent standoff weapons the QR-SAM systems might not stand much of a chance. The BARAK-NG seems to be some way off and even that isn't in the same class as the S-400.


A system like S-300/400 and patriot is used to protect high value targets like nuclear installations/national capitals/command bunkers/C3I nodes etc..where you want to take out the enemy from far enough to deny him the use of any stand-off weapons.....these are very expensive systems and used to protect equally strategic assets...

The QR-SAM along with systems like ZSU-23 are used to support the forward and mobile formations of the army against any CAS missions from enemy AF.The QR-SAM+ZSU-23 combo will form integral part of Indian strike elements which are sure to be bounced upon by PAF/PLAAF....plus take any form of attack helos that enemy may throw at you....

Which brings me to the question:Why do we need fresh RFI/RFP if the IA already has Spyder? (IIRC, IAF went for Spyder :-? )Or is it going to be a dog and pony show to put pressure on Israelese in terms of cost aspect and play to the gallery in terms of avoiding a single vendor situation?Any clues?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5016
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kartik » 01 Feb 2010 12:43

Sid wrote:nop, its in most probability local copy of GBU-10 Paveway 2. It looks different due to merging background, paint scheme and its fins (which i assume are still in process of opening).


what do you mean its a local copy of the GBU-10 Paveway 2 ? :roll: just an off-hand remark without any proof.

the GBU-10 Paveway 2 has no such distinct looking almost triangular shaped fins. just because the front end laser seeker looks similar means nothing because the Israeli Griffin too has a similar front end.

and my remarks had nothing to do with any visual mistake due to the background, because the fins are very clearly visible. what you refer to as "paint scheme" are markings to allow for very clear reference for position at the time of separation, when the video that the chase plane is recording is analysed. There is also no evidence whether those fins open up or are fixed in that position itself.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Anujan » 01 Feb 2010 13:04

Kartik wrote:Also, the new LGB kit looks very different from anything else on the market- the fins are very distinct. Will make it very easy to spot and identify as indigenous. Sudarshan looked different, but maybe they changed configuration sometime in between when the earlier picture of the Sudarshan was published in the DRDO journal. Is this the Sudarshan ?


There is some confusion about Sudarshan. A PIB release said this http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print_page1.asp?relid=35307

The major projects executed by ADE are Lakshya, Nishant UAV, LCA Simulator and Sudarshan Laser Guided Gun.

alok_c
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 07:20

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby alok_c » 01 Feb 2010 13:15

While we are speculating on the shape of the fins, it is possible that we are simply seeing the fins being deployed and in "half-open" position. For reference please check out this video at around 7sec when the GBU-28's fins are being deployed. The relative distance of the GBU-28 from F-111 is comparable to Sudarshan from Jag.

Last edited by alok_c on 01 Feb 2010 13:30, edited 1 time in total.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1643
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sid » 01 Feb 2010 13:22

Kartik wrote:what do you mean its a local copy of the GBU-10 Paveway 2 ? :roll: just an off-hand remark without any proof.

the GBU-10 Paveway 2 has no such distinct looking almost triangular shaped fins. just because the front end laser seeker looks similar means nothing because the Israeli Griffin too has a similar front end.

and my remarks had nothing to do with any visual mistake due to the background, because the fins are very clearly visible. what you refer to as "paint scheme" are markings to allow for very clear reference for position at the time of separation, when the video that the chase plane is recording is analysed. There is also no evidence whether those fins open up or are fixed in that position itself.


"local copy" means either training round or Indian version of Paveway. Since we don't have any official publication on weapon, all statements are made based on observing and studying similar systems in operation.

IMHO Kartik, front fins are similar. they too are triangular. LGB dropped by Jag has black outlining painted, which is making it look like something other then triangular shape. since background in the pic is too bright its difficult to get the real shape of fins.

Also fins at the back are still in retracting position (i can be wrong). But my assumptions are based on other how similar systems work.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 01 Feb 2010 14:10

China-specific Agni III to be tested
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... kuKw=&SEO=

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11643
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Feb 2010 16:15

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-orders-another-750-Akash-surface-to-air-missiles/articleshow/5527577.cms

IAF orders another 750 Akash surface-to-air missiles


this is good news, goes towards building a Miltary Industrial COmplex, 250+750 the IAF will now have 1000 Akash Missiles. Wish the Army orders some too. we can then move towards the next gen SAMS

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nrshah » 02 Feb 2010 16:19

Aditya_V wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-orders-another-750-Akash-surface-to-air-missiles/articleshow/5527577.cms

IAF orders another 750 Akash surface-to-air missiles


this is good news, goes towards building a Miltary Industrial COmplex, 250+750 the IAF will now have 1000 Akash Missiles. Wish the Army orders some too. we can then move towards the next gen SAMS


Finally indigenous products have started getting the long due respect...

This will be a real boost to DRDO for next gen long range sams...

I hope we are contributing fairly in Barak 8/NG/MR SAM/LR SAM whatever it is. i hope it is not like getting the same off self and printing made in India on the cover.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nrshah » 02 Feb 2010 16:26

Aditya_V wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-orders-another-750-Akash-surface-to-air-missiles/articleshow/5527577.cms

IAF orders another 750 Akash surface-to-air missiles


this is good news, goes towards building a Miltary Industrial COmplex, 250+750 the IAF will now have 1000 Akash Missiles. Wish the Army orders some too. we can then move towards the next gen SAMS


It think it is total 750 missiles with 250 already ordered for 2 squadrons..

The IAF will deploy 125 missiles each in six squadrons as and when BEL delivers them. in the link confirms that when read with below

Initially two squadrons were placed. Recently 4 more squadrons were ordered. below is the link

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12269

Thus total squadrons are 6 with 125 missiles per squadron


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests