Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 03 Jul 2009 10:54

rakall wrote:
durgesh wrote:Is a 300 kt warhead enough to destroy Beijing,Shanghai or HongKong ? :|


India is a peaceful country onlee.. We dont speak/think of destroying anybody..
Our missiles can deliver flowers too..


Agreed, our objective is deterrence rather than destruction. With a strong deterrence, we reduce the possibility of war. Let us not forget in thousand's of years of India - China relations, it is only recently (last 50 years or so) we have a problem. IMHO we should hope that at some point China reverts to its peaceful, friendly state in the future rather than what it is today.

Sorry for going OT.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 03 Jul 2009 12:54

p_saggu wrote:How do missiles specifically ICBMs fly? What sort of course do they take? Amongst the two below which?

The shourya, I understand takes a cruise missile like course at a 50 Km altitude. But an ICBM that travels halfway across the earth - does it take the parabolic path or does it go into orbit, then deorbits at the required distance?

Even more specifically, will the third stage on the A5 give its payload the required speed to attain orbit?

ICBM fly just like IRBM.
No, they do not enter orbit and then de-orbit.

The third stage of A5 allows heavier payload the same velocity as A3, or conversely higher velocity for same payload as A3.

As you can see that means lighter warhead is critical to reach destination, and its yield need to be high eneough to have desired destructive area on target. IOW TN warhead.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Anant » 03 Jul 2009 12:56

Not to hijack the thread but China has been peaceful prior to the last 50 years struck me as odd. I suggest you read a book or two on Chinese history. The chinese culture (whether Han or not) has been inherently violent and ruthlessly barbaric for eons, not 50 years, not 0 years. I don't trust the Pakistanis and I sure as heck don't trust the chinese. Mao in his cultural revolution killed anywhere from 40-80 million people and going back to the communist revolution and even prior to that, various feuding factions who tried to establish their own dynastic reign killed scores.

The only reason China was quiescent towards India prior to the last 50 years was: 1) India was under the British yoke and so was China to an extent. 2) China was militarily backward and easy prey compared to western powers who could potentially intervene (not because they are friends of India but for resources and strategic reasons) and 3) India was not that strong (viz a vie China or the West).

To make it on point for the missile, I'd love to see India build a ICBM with greater than 11,000Km range with MIRV's and quit the obfuscation; and certainly with Agni V or whatever it is is a true >11,000Km missile, then say so proudly and boldly and repeatedly. I seriously don't see the repercussions in saying it. India is a valued member of the international community and a trading partner of almost the entire globe (not to mention supplying intellectual capital). No one would dare make it a pariah. The rule of law and democracy still exists in India; as others have said, political spine is required. Who knows when that will come, however? Certainly, it is not a question of brainpower or resources.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 03 Jul 2009 13:06

arunsrinivasan wrote:
rakall wrote:India is a peaceful country onlee.. We dont speak/think of destroying anybody..
Our missiles can deliver flowers too..


Agreed, our objective is deterrence rather than destruction.

Very correct, a green painted bum which causes destruction on a pin head does not evoke any deterrence. Has a chicken every deterred a butcher?

Sorry I missed what are you saying. A human psychology and sociology lesson will be helpful.


Let us not forget in thousand's of years of India - China relations, it is only recently (last 50 years or so) we have a problem. IMHO we should hope that at some point China reverts to its peaceful, friendly state in the future rather than what it is today.
I am very sure that the weak Indian kings in Peshawar were also living off hope when the Izlamic thugs come from Khyber Durra. Everyone knows what happened to their hopes.
You prescribe same medicine to Indians again !! No thank you.

China will be peaceful to India IF and only IF India has aggressive muscles to rub Chinese nose to dust. No two ways about its efficacy.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 03 Jul 2009 13:11

Anant wrote:Not to hijack the thread but China has been peaceful prior to the last 50 years struck me as odd. I suggest you read a book or two on Chinese history. .

An unread pundit is a marauding misleader.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Kailash » 03 Jul 2009 13:26

An operational A3 is the need of the hour. Also production plans have to ramped up.

An ICBM can wait till we make enemies with south americans, US/Canada or Australia. An A5 or A7 or A9 on paper or in developmental trials dont mean anything.

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 03 Jul 2009 15:23

I seem to have touched a raw nerve here. Please note that I said we should build a strong deterrence. I also know strong respects strong, and understand that nobody has any time for weaklings, especially China. I strongly believe we need to significantly scale up our defence capabilities esp. w.r.t China.

My point was that while we build a strong deterrence lets not get carried away. I accept that my knowledge of Chinese history is limited, but I felt that given the historical cultural ties between India and China, there might be some scope for better relations in future. Again, I recognise my expectation might be very naive & am the first person to recognise that. Maybe the gurus, here could enlighten me further on this.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 03 Jul 2009 20:07

arunsrinivasan wrote:My point was that while we build a strong deterrence lets not get carried away. I accept that my knowledge of Chinese history is limited, but I felt that given the historical cultural ties between India and China, there might be some scope for better relations in future. Again, I recognise my expectation might be very naive & am the first person to recognise that. Maybe the gurus, here could enlighten me further on this.


For gyan on Geopolitical interests and China pls visit BRF: Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum

OK back to missile discussion.

Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Nalla Baalu » 04 Jul 2009 01:29

Nag may join Army soon: Saraswat

HYDERABAD: With the third generation anti-tank Nag missile proving its lethality in the final user trials being conducted in the deserts of Rajasthan, a top missile scientist of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) expressed optimism about its induction into the Army soon.

The Army, which conducted winter trials of the missile’s land version in December, began the summer trials earlier this week. While four flight tests were completed by Thursday, three more were slated for Friday night.
...
The hit-to-kill missile, designed to take a unique trajectory resembling that of a moving cobra , smashed stationary targets (derelict tanks) in the four trials.

While two targets were of medium range, one each was of shorter and longer range (four km).
...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Jul 2009 08:05



Good news indeed.

However: "With the third generation anti-tank Nag missile".

Q: How many (accepted) "generations" are there in ATMs?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 04 Jul 2009 08:14

NRao wrote:


Good news indeed.

However: "With the third generation anti-tank Nag missile".

Q: How many (accepted) "generations" are there in ATMs?


Three?

wiki

First-generation manually command guided MCLOS missiles like the AT-3 Sagger require input from an operator using a joystick or similar device to steer the missile to the target. The disadvantage is that the operator must be well trained and must remain stationary and in view of the target during the flight time of the missile. Because of this, the operator is vulnerable while guiding the missile.

Second-generation semi-automatically command guided SACLOS missiles require the operator to only keep the sights on the target until impact. Automatic guidance commands are sent to the missile through wires or radio, or the missile relies on laser marking or a TV camera view from the nose of the missile. Examples are the American TOW and Hellfire I missiles. Again the operator must remain stationary during the missile's flight.

More advanced third-generation guidance systems rely on a laser, electro-optical imager or a W band radar seeker, on the nose of the missile. Once the target is identified the missile needs no further guidance during flight (i.e. it is "fire-and-forget" ) and the operator is free to retreat. However, fire-and-forget missiles are more subject to electronic countermeasures than MCLOS and SACLOS missiles. Examples include the American Javelin, German PARS 3 LR, Israeli Spike and the Indian Nag.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jul 2009 08:35

in terms of trajectory, hellfire seem to have more options for trajectory shaping etc and swedish bill and and maybe others follow a flat profile and overfly the target , at right moment they fire
a top attack inert metal slug on the tank.

dont know what benefit this profile brings over climbing and smashing the tank with entire missile. maybe it keeps the propellant need smaller and results in a lighter missile?

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 04 Jul 2009 14:16

Not sure if appropriate for this thread, mods, please move / change as required.

China Looks to Undermine U.S. Power, With ‘Assassin’s Mace’
U.S. airpower depends on the ability to overcome surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses, and one of the key weapons for this role is the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-radiation Missile (HARM), which homes in on radar emissions. (You can see them, under the F/A-18’s wings in the picture, above.) The defenders can either turn off their radar, thus blinding themselves, or have it destroyed. This is where the black box that Ramo found at a military trade show in Zhuhai in 2002 comes in:

“…packed inside were several thousand microtransmitters and when you plugged the device in and turned it on, it broadcast signals - 10,000 of them - on the frequency of a SAM site. From the perspective of an American pilot - or , more precisely, the perspective of his HARM missile looking for a ‘lock’ on a SAM radar signal - this meant an air-to-ground picture that looked like 10,001 SAM signals, only one of which was real…”

Ramo suggests that if defenders have these black boxes then the U.S. aircraft would be helpless against enemy SAMs, and air superiority would be lost at stroke.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby k prasad » 04 Jul 2009 14:54

Singha wrote:in terms of trajectory, hellfire seem to have more options for trajectory shaping etc and swedish bill and and maybe others follow a flat profile and overfly the target , at right moment they fire a top attack inert metal slug on the tank.

dont know what benefit this profile brings over climbing and smashing the tank with entire missile. maybe it keeps the propellant need smaller and results in a lighter missile?


Hellfire is meant for a huge variety of platforms, hence the diversity... Nag will also get there in a couple of years, once Army accepts.

As for Bill.... it is meant to be man-portable, and hence, they need to really reduce the missile size, which is why they opt for the top attack Slug. The Nag though, has no such compulsions, and can attack with full force and literally rip apart the target without exception.

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2009 17:16

arunsrinivasan wrote:Not sure if appropriate for this thread, mods, please move / change as required.

China Looks to Undermine U.S. Power, With ‘Assassin’s Mace’
U.S. airpower depends on the ability to overcome surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses, and one of the key weapons for this role is the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-radiation Missile (HARM), which homes in on radar emissions. (You can see them, under the F/A-18’s wings in the picture, above.) The defenders can either turn off their radar, thus blinding themselves, or have it destroyed. This is where the black box that Ramo found at a military trade show in Zhuhai in 2002 comes in:

“…packed inside were several thousand microtransmitters and when you plugged the device in and turned it on, it broadcast signals - 10,000 of them - on the frequency of a SAM site. From the perspective of an American pilot - or , more precisely, the perspective of his HARM missile looking for a ‘lock’ on a SAM radar signal - this meant an air-to-ground picture that looked like 10,001 SAM signals, only one of which was real…”

Ramo suggests that if defenders have these black boxes then the U.S. aircraft would be helpless against enemy SAMs, and air superiority would be lost at stroke.

To me it is not clear how a single black box with 10,000 radar emission producing microprocessors that require to be plugged in to produce a signal in the "same frequency" as the radar site would actually have any effect at all.

While I am no radar expecrt I would have thought that such a black box is almost meaningless and would be happy to be corrected.

Several issues come to mind. If all those 10,000 are sitting in one box - it will look like one site, not 10,000 sites.

If all 10,000 were to look like 10,000 sites they would all have to be spread out, and all would need to be plugged in.

They would all have to produce radar signals of the power and intensity of the radar site. How do I differentiate betwen a lighthouse and 10,000 candles?

Would the said missile site being camouflaged by these 10,000 chips stay on exactly the same frequency? Surely - jamming one frequency would make the radar site jump and change frequency immediately revealing the real McCoy from among 10,000 decoys.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 04 Jul 2009 17:50


this is the NAMICA version IIRC, hoping to hear more news on this !

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby AmitR » 04 Jul 2009 18:52

shiv wrote:...
Would the said missile site being camouflaged by these 10,000 chips stay on exactly the same frequency? Surely - jamming one frequency would make the radar site jump and change frequency immediately revealing the real McCoy from among 10,000 decoys.


The Chinese technology seems to be more advanced. All the radars and the decoys can be networked and may easily be made to transmit signals on the same frequency hop. As usual US builds an multi billion dollar technology that can be hoodwinked with cheap set of radio emitters.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby k prasad » 04 Jul 2009 19:20

AmitR wrote:
shiv wrote:...
Would the said missile site being camouflaged by these 10,000 chips stay on exactly the same frequency? Surely - jamming one frequency would make the radar site jump and change frequency immediately revealing the real McCoy from among 10,000 decoys.


The Chinese technology seems to be more advanced. All the radars and the decoys can be networked and may easily be made to transmit signals on the same frequency hop. As usual US builds an multi billion dollar technology that can be hoodwinked with cheap set of radio emitters.


I believe this is a decoy sort of system for a semi-active SAM missile system, meant to blunt the supremacy of the USAF in EW and ECM systems, which gives their aircraft a very strong ability to conduct deep strikes (especially SEAD and DEAD ops) without too high a risk.

What the chinese system does is essentially send out a UWB RF signal using this black box, all with a pseudo-noise signal. The pilot/aircraft will be unable to identify which of those 10,000 channels is actually the one guiding the missile. This makes it almost impossible to jam the homing signal to confuse the missile, unless you have extremely fast and extremely powerful processors, and/or an equally UWB active jammer with similar power - neither of which are feasible today due to weight and power considerations.

However, while this will definitely give the defender an advantage, I think there is a slight exaggeration being created here about the level of potency this system will provide. This sort of system isn't new or revolutionary. The 10,000 channels brings an interesting problem, since to make your system perfectly camoflaged, your radar power must be divided between all these channels, which drops the homing signal power and thus, range of the system. If your homing signal of a higher power than the others, an intelligent ECM system can easily crack it.

Apart from all this, lets not forget that this sort of jamming/interference is only a small part of EW and Self Protection suites in todays aircraft. Even if one system is rendered less effective, there are many other systems to take over and continue. I think that while the USAF will look at this system seriously, they will not lose much sleep over it. Such systems do exist, and Chinese aren't the first. US and indeed, others will have enough ways to counter it. With processors becoming lighter and faster, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to neutralize this threat within a very short time.

Experts, please correct me if anything I've said is wrong.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Katare » 04 Jul 2009 21:42

Nothing new but usual uninformed alarmist western journalisms!

Radar decoys are common things but they hardly work against modern airforces. A small software module added to the missile/aircraft can scan and reject cheap decoys! It all depends on the sophistication; whichever side has more sophistication would prevail!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Jul 2009 22:09

The article states:

This is where the black box that Ramo found at a military trade show in Zhuhai in 2002 comes in:

“…packed inside were several thousand microtransmitters and when you plugged the device in and turned it on, it broadcast signals - 10,000 of them - on the frequency of a SAM site


So all the micros-transmitters are in one box = one location.

Then he states:

this meant an air-to-ground picture that looked like 10,001 SAM signals, only one of which was real…


But, since they are ALL co-located, the target should see them ALL as one geographic location. Even if the "box" were to be placed a Km apart, it should be easy to detect the geographic separation.

Next, what are the F-18G's etc for? I would have thought they are meant just for spoofing such situations.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 05 Jul 2009 00:06

k prasad wrote:...
What the chinese system does is essentially send out a UWB RF signal using this black box, all with a pseudo-noise signal. The pilot/aircraft will be unable to identify which of those 10,000 channels is actually the one guiding the missile. This makes it almost impossible to jam the homing signal to confuse the missile, unless you have extremely fast and extremely powerful processors, and/or an equally UWB active jammer with similar power - neither of which are feasible today due to weight and power considerations.

However, while this will definitely give the defender an advantage, I think there is a slight exaggeration being created here about the level of potency this system will provide. This sort of system isn't new or revolutionary. The 10,000 channels brings an interesting problem, since to make your system perfectly camoflaged, your radar power must be divided between all these channels, which drops the homing signal power and thus, range of the system. If your homing signal of a higher power than the others, an intelligent ECM system can easily crack it.
...

I am in the communications field and your probable description of the "black box" is about 10,000 times (pun intended) better than the Wired magazine description. Spreading the SAM signal into a spread-spectrum signal with a spreading gain of 10,000 (40 dB) would make a 100 kW SAM signal appear like a 10 W signal in the original bandwidth. Of course, the real bandwidth is now 10,000 times wider than the original bandwidth thanks to the spreading but only the defender would know the code(s) to de-spread the signal.

To use an analogy, think of replacing a sunny sky with a completely overcast sky. Anyone can point out the location of the sun on a clear day, but it is much harder to identify the direction of the sun behind the ambient glow of an overcast sky.

To the intruder the weak signal is also indistinguishable from the thousands of signals from cellular network antennas spread across any populated area.

Yes, the SAM radar coverage is compromised (by 40 dB), but the beauty of this arrangement is that you can have multiple low-cost transmitters scattered across a vast area and networked with one another. Each low-cost box need not have the intelligence to detect and track foes. The complex signal processing functions can be centralised at a discreet location. This affords the defender a graceful degradation in the effectiveness of the radar system as the "black boxes" are located by the intruder and destroyed, one by one.

The intruder can of course choose to carpet bomb the whole territory, which is apparently what the US chose to do in Iraq to get rid of GPS jammers scattered around SAM sites.
Last edited by PratikDas on 05 Jul 2009 02:06, edited 1 time in total.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 05 Jul 2009 00:37

Something else that most readers forget is that for Radar to protect itself from HARM, it must first realibely know that a HARM is comign its way. Given that HARM's RCS is few order of magnitude smaller than typical fighter, I pooch at what range will SAM RADAR know a HARM is coming its way and it must shutup and turn on the starry carpet glare of spread spectrum jammer?

OTOH if the CHinese keep the starry carpet glare switched ON when its RADAR is operating then what will happen to Radar's own SNR and range?
Its like cutting the nose to spite the face.

Spreading radar's bandwidth has its own set of issues w.r.t. beam forming.

IMVHO the most sensitive and robust radar is a bed of distributed bi/tri/quad static radar. It catches intruder and its small HARM missile beautifully.

And if you have processing gain on that bed of starry carpet of spread spectrum jammer (that now act as Radar transmitters {that have a slave Chronometer kept in synchronized lock by IRNESS/GPS} ) the processing gain is big enough that few hundred of these 20 Watt (light bulb) nodes is as powerful in terms of range as conventional 5 Mega Watt Radar transmitter.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby babbupandey » 05 Jul 2009 00:56

so what you mean to say is that they compromise the radar coverage in order to hide the SAM sites?
what is the approximate trade-off in this case? Say if the radar can cover 100km area, then after making the black-box arrangement, how much coverage will be decreased?

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 05 Jul 2009 01:19

some countries are covertly syncing up their cell phone towers to create wide radar coverage, not sure if we will be able to do that as the equipment for these towers is usually imported by the private telecom operators (a parallel defence only network needs money)

on the same note, can LEO sats be paired with ground based radars in bi-static mode? the range being higher since we aren't looking for a bounce (sats need to survive from ASAT weapons)

high powered transmitters (power sources?) from the Indian embassies in Afghanistan paired with similar ones on our western sector, especially the aerostats covering entire TSP airspace

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 05 Jul 2009 07:53

A man portable Nag variant should be created so that

1) it can be shoulder/launcher fired or a two man team can use it (provisioned by choppers or para dropped)

2) can be fed elevation maps along with target coordinates into a field laptop held by a soldier so that it can compute a suitable trajectory which can then be uploaded to the missile

static and slow moving targets then don't need a expensive seeker, its applicability in a kargil like environment seems profound provided one has precise target intelligence

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 05 Jul 2009 08:45

vasu_ray wrote:A man portable Nag variant should be created so that

How about a truck portable Nag variant that can hit Batallion HQ with range of 15 Km or even 50Km?

My "Surat Shabd Yoga" teacher told me that Macrocosm is very similar to Microcosm :twisted:

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 05 Jul 2009 08:52

vasu_ray wrote:some countries are covertly syncing up their cell phone towers to create wide radar coverage, not sure if we will be able to do that as the equipment for these towers is usually imported by the private telecom operators (a parallel defence only network needs money)

Yours faithfully has been suggesting the same for the last 5 years to DilliBilli who frequent BRF.
Perhaps I should have a Gora name (E.g. Joann White) and then someone will listen to "Brahma Vakya", instead of "Vishwakarma Vakya". :wink:

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby govardhanks » 05 Jul 2009 12:18

Arun_s sir,
are you a vishwakarman?

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby AmitR » 05 Jul 2009 14:17

govardhanks wrote:Arun_s sir,
are you a vishwakarman?

No his real name is George Bush but he lurks around to see what intelligence he can glean. His other agent called Andrew Crista... was caught and taken care of.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby harbans » 05 Jul 2009 14:33

Let us not forget in thousand's of years of India - China relations, it is only recently (last 50 years or so) we have a problem. IMHO we should hope that at some point China reverts to its peaceful, friendly state in the future rather than what it is today.

Thats because for thousands of years India and China never had a boundary. It's only after 1952's annexation of Tibet by the Cinese that the Indians and Chinese have had a boundary with each other.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby babbupandey » 05 Jul 2009 17:15

Not to mention that neither India nor China were as united as of now. There were small provinces all fighting amongst each other.

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby derkonig » 05 Jul 2009 21:58

^^
You forgot the Himalayas. They ensured that the Han barbarian has to be content butchering its own fraternity.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 05 Jul 2009 23:43

Arun_S wrote:
vasu_ray wrote:some countries are covertly syncing up their cell phone towers to create wide radar coverage, not sure if we will be able to do that as the equipment for these towers is usually imported by the private telecom operators (a parallel defence only network needs money)

Yours faithfully has been suggesting the same for the last 5 years to DilliBilli who frequent BRF.
Perhaps I should have a Gora name (E.g. Joann White) and then someone will listen to "Brahma Vakya", instead of "Vishwakarma Vakya". :wink:

The greatest hindrance here is energy. Most cell sites only have a few hours of backup power supply in the form of lead-acid batteries when there is a general power outage. Many cell sites have diesel generators because power outages are frequent but the fuel stores on-site typically won't last more than a day.

Our power plants would be most vulnerable in a surprise offensive by the enemy.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby babbupandey » 05 Jul 2009 23:57

I do not think towers will use substantially higher energy when converted as radars. In times of war, even a single day of such a wide coverage can tilt the balance in our favour.
Also, if mobile towers do become such precious assets for the armed forces, government will make sure that there is a source of alternate power (or unlimited supply of diesel) available to selected mobile towers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Jul 2009 00:06

are there new antennas needed or the stick type ones currently in place for cellphone will suffice?

what is the ceiling of these 'radars' - only useful against low flyers or can detect hi-alt planes and drones too ?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 06 Jul 2009 01:04

govardhanks wrote:
Yours faithfully has been suggesting the same for the last 5 years to DilliBilli who frequent BRF.
Perhaps I should have a Gora name (E.g. Joann White) and then someone will listen to "Brahma Vakya", instead of "Vishwakarma Vakya".

Arun_s sir,
are you a vishwakarman?

Yes, I am a Vishwakarman. (Some find that difficult to digest)

PratikDas wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
    "">>some countries are covertly syncing up their cell phone towers to create wide radar coverage, not sure if we will be able to do that as the equipment for these towers is usually imported by the private telecom operators (a parallel defence only network needs money)""

Yours faithfully has been suggesting the same for the last 5 years to DilliBilli who frequent BRF.
Perhaps I should have a Gora name (E.g. Joann White) and then someone will listen to "Brahma Vakya", instead of "Vishwakarma Vakya". :wink:

The greatest hindrance here is energy. Most cell sites only have a few hours of backup power supply in the form of lead-acid batteries when there is a general power outage. Many cell sites have diesel generators because power outages are frequent but the fuel stores on-site typically won't last more than a day.

Our power plants would be most vulnerable in a surprise offensive by the enemy.


One does not need grid AC power to energize the nodes that transmit 15 Watt peak power at low duty cycyle. Just a small fixed angle solar panel and/or wind power harvester will do the job. You will be surprised how low the average power consumption is for these "Gyan petals".

BTW the BFS(battle field surveillance) radar consumes too much power compared to these "Gyan petals". And BFSR are not AC-Mains powered, are they?

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Baljeet » 06 Jul 2009 02:13

There are two types of Antenna's employed by Cell Phone Towers, Omni and directional Antennas. There is a limit of height and line of sight limitations on them. A group of antenna generally 4 Antennas are called sector. One is TX/RX, Neutral and emergency call. I had a stint in US with AT&T while back installing these antennas in Los Angeles. The sector grid orientation is 330-30 deg vector. Basically what it means is if you are facing North and spread your arms out at approx 45deg that will give you a cell tower comm area.
As Arun Boss has said before, all you need is increase the power and change frequency, you can fool those million dollar HARM missile into hitting dirt. During Iraq war, Iraqis successfully employed these techniques and AmeriKhans ended up blowing power stations, residential areas etc.

Will it happen in Mera Bharat, I doubt it. We are a nation that never learns or are ever pro-active. Desh ke Neta are too busy pampering every aam aadmi without realizing that if nation doesn't survive neither will aam aadmi.

JMT

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 06 Jul 2009 02:14

Arun_S wrote:How about a truck portable Nag variant that can hit Batallion HQ with range of 15 Km or even 50Km?

My "Surat Shabd Yoga" teacher told me that Macrocosm is very similar to Microcosm :twisted:


speaking of microcosm, how about creating a warhead for prithvi, that spreads sub munitions at an altitude and area, each munition then precision targets artillery guns, tanks etc., prithvi's range can be compensated with heavier warheads

along with smerch, pinaka, a truck mounted solid fueled prithvi for area saturation can reduce the burden on the infantry

however, a 50km precision weapon that relies less on ground transportation and hence logistics, say fired from Dhruv/LCH further helps the infantry at the front line

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 06 Jul 2009 02:28

vasu_ray wrote:however, a 50km precision weapon that relies less on ground transportation and hence logistics, say fired from Dhruv/LCH further helps the infantry at the front line

someone pinch me !

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 06 Jul 2009 02:40

helina at 7km range puts Dhruv just outside enemy's shoulder fired SAM range, got to have a better one that can target multiples


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests