Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 19 Mar 2010 03:24

ankit, I couldn't understand all of what you wrote. but in reply to what I did fathom,

a) many if not most modern AAMs have a lofted flight profile in order to increase range before it nears the kill-box. this flight is analogous to a ballistic trajectory. even in missiles w/o this profile, the initial part of the flight is a mad dash towards the kill-zone, burning all the fuel as quickly as possible. here too, the profile makes little use of lift as such and the trajectory is again more or less ballistic in nature. the fins on a SAM or AAM serve primarily as control surfaces rather than lift generating devices.

b) I didn't get you last point but based on my hunch of what you are trying to say, SAMs and AAMs are coasting when they finally engage a target unless the target is well within range. they still manage to keep up with the target because at this point they have a velocity comparable/better than the target aircraft while they have a much higher maneuverability capability than the aircrafts. (typically >30-40G as against ~ 8-9 G for fighters.)


oh and btw, surprise of surprise, I do know that SAMs and AAMs are different from ballistic missiles ( :eek: :eek: ) and that they are used to shoot down aircrafts !! ( :eek: :eek: :eek: )
now, who could have thought of that !

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Shalav » 19 Mar 2010 04:04

ankit-s wrote:SAMs and AAMs are different from ballistic missiles, they dont have free fall (coasting after burnout) ballistic trajectory (they are normally meant to shoot the aircrafts). Missiles that are not ballistic are aerodynamic, operating in the atmosphere.

An un-powered missile looses its altitude by seconds on a horizontal chase, because of its heavy mass and looses its target which can maneuver and is still on the run (powered).

Coasting is (Thrust = 0)

If a SAM or AAM is chasing its target without a thrust, what do you expect my friend?

If you know something new that I dont, I want to learn from you.



It doesn't work that way!

For instance the AIM-54 had a motor burn of ~27 seconds, with a range of 180+ km, and peak velocity was mach 5

calculate for yourself

mach 1 = 340 m/s (@ SL)
mach 5 = 1700 m/s (@SL)

Even if we assume the missile reached mach 5 the instant it was released it would be only 45,900 m (~46 km) distant by the time its motors burnt out. Hence we deduce it coasts the rest of the way. Your assumption of powered flight is incorrect.

see this book preview for missile motor burn times for some SAMs (pg - 396-398)

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-Dzkn ... &q=&f=true

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby neerajb » 19 Mar 2010 14:31

SAMs are super elevated before launch which is a common practice. In AAMs, I guess, lofted trajectory is used for better range than flying in a straight line. So yes ballistics are taken into account while guiding the missiles to the target.

Cheers....

ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ankit-s » 19 Mar 2010 18:49

Shalav wrote:

It doesn't work that way!

For instance the AIM-54 had a motor burn of ~27 seconds, with a range of 180+ km, and peak velocity was mach 5

calculate for yourself

mach 1 = 340 m/s (@ SL)
mach 5 = 1700 m/s (@SL)

Even if we assume the missile reached mach 5 the instant it was released it would be only 45,900 m (~46 km) distant by the time its motors burnt out. Hence we deduce it coasts the rest of the way. Your assumption of powered flight is incorrect.

see this book preview for missile motor burn times for some SAMs (pg - 396-398)

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-Dzkn ... &q=&f=true



Change in Velocity, delta V = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN m/s


This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor NOT a boost sustain motor.

AIM-120A AMRAAM.

Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats)
Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon)
Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors)
Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors)


If 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, it means 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM -- roughly a 40% fuel fraction. Numbers translated below:

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s

The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible. The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design. It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at (Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release). The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn MUCH MORE SLOWLY to keep it's velocity at or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out, hence the word SUSTAINER is the key here.

There is a rule of thumb in missile dynamics as for as deceleration is concerned at various heights n Mach speed, but I will come back on it after your response as I will have to look for that table.

THAAD relies ONLY on movable (thrust) nozzle and reaction jet for maneuvering.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby neerajb » 19 Mar 2010 19:47

ankit-s wrote:Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s

The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible.


Ideal rocket equation assumes that no external forces are at play. Your calculations are grossly ignoring the aerodynamic drag that is quite significant at such high mach numbers.

P.S. - I am out of boost-coast thingy, just wanted to point to the assumption missed by you.

Cheers....
Last edited by neerajb on 19 Mar 2010 19:57, edited 1 time in total.

ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ankit-s » 19 Mar 2010 19:55

SAMs and AAMs are coasting when they finally engage a target unless the target is well within range. they still manage to keep up with the target because at this point they have a velocity comparable/better than the target aircraft while they have a much higher maneuverability capability than the aircrafts



Once you start coasting, the maneuverability of the missile comes down, (hence the efficiency of the missile is reduced)

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Shalav » 19 Mar 2010 20:24

ankit-s wrote:
Change in Velocity, delta V = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN m/s


This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor NOT a boost sustain motor.

AIM-120A AMRAAM.

Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats)
Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon)
Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors)
Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors)


If 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, it means 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM -- roughly a 40% fuel fraction. Numbers translated below:

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s

The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible. The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design. It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at (Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release). The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn MUCH MORE SLOWLY to keep it's velocity at or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out, hence the word SUSTAINER is the key here.



That's for a specific motor for a specific missile.

even then the motor burns for ~ 36 seconds including boost and sustain. Still not enough time to cover the stated 48 km range in a powered envelope.

This particular discussion is about your assumption of powered flight throughout the envelope, which is incorrect, however you want to interpret it.

SAMs and AAMs are different from ballistic missiles, they dont have free fall (coasting after burnout)...


PS: the page where you copied the above formula from

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... -1879.aspx

also has the following immediately after your ^c ^v range

And just to be clear, that's an estimate of the Vmax, or peak velocity. In an all-boost motor of typical AAM size, this will be reached within about the first five seconds or so. After that it's all deceleration as the the missile coasts for the rest of its fly-out and drag acts to slow it down. For the longer ranged missiles with a boost-sustain motor, the peak velocity at burnout will come at most about 10 seconds later, or after about 10 to 15 seconds total burn time. Again, after that it's all deceleration. From the charts I've seen, I'd rough wag that basically all AAMs will be back down to under M3.0 within only about 10 to 15 seconds of coasting after burnout, and under M2.0 within about 20-30 seconds after that.

ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ankit-s » 19 Mar 2010 20:46

Shalav wrote:
Change in Velocity, delta V = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN m/s


This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor NOT a boost sustain motor.

AIM-120A AMRAAM.

Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats)
Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon)
Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors)
Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors)


If 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, it means 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM -- roughly a 40% fuel fraction. Numbers translated below:

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s

The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible. The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design. It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at (Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release). The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn MUCH MORE SLOWLY to keep it's velocity at or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out, hence the word SUSTAINER is the key here.



That's for a specific motor for a specific missile.

even then the motor burns for ~ 36 seconds including boost and sustain. Still not enough time to cover the stated 48 km range in a powered envelope.

This particular discussion is about your assumption of powered flight throughout the envelope, which is incorrect, however you want to interpret it.

SAMs and AAMs are different from ballistic missiles, they dont have free fall (coasting after burnout)...


PS: the page where you copied the above formula from

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... -1879.aspx

also has the following immediately after your ^c ^v range




And I said the following too very clearly:

An un-powered missile looses its altitude by seconds on a horizontal chase

Although I would have preferred to say fraction of second. The crux of matter here is that in a coast mode, manuverability is diminished, and I am pretty sure you are going to agree on this.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Shalav » 19 Mar 2010 20:51

ankit-s wrote:The crux of matter here is that in a coast mode, manuverability is diminished, and I am pretty sure you are going to agree on this.


Thats what is being said all along.

You originally started with AAM DO NOT COAST. Now that you agree they coast after burnout there is nothing more to discuss.

ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ankit-s » 20 Mar 2010 02:48

Shalav wrote:
ankit-s wrote:The crux of matter here is that in a coast mode, manuverability is diminished, and I am pretty sure you are going to agree on this.


Thats what is being said all along.

You originally started with AAM DO NOT COAST. Now that you agree they coast after burnout there is nothing more to discuss.


If I did not know about coasting (familiar term in missile parlance) I would not have said the following in the beginning:

Coasting is (Thrust = 0)

But anyway, lets move on, we are not here to score points over one another.
Your input is appreciated.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby geeth » 20 Mar 2010 10:04

An un-powered missile looses its altitude by seconds on a horizontal chase

Ahem..thank God! spinster is not around...

It reminds me of Shri Rajiv Gandhi's speech......"Hum Loosega Nahin!"

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 20 Mar 2010 10:22

it was actually : "hum hindustani hain aur hindustani hi rahenge, chahe hum jeete ya chahe hum loosein" :lol:

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Bheem » 20 Mar 2010 11:33

It would be interesting to point out that Astra missile which is equivalent to earlier model AMRAAMs as a motor burn of only 4-5 secs and rest is just coast.


I think that a missile can coast till its speed is above ~1.5 mach then it falls out of the sky or looses its ability to maneuver. In order to extent range two modalities are adopted, one is sustainer motor and another is lofted profile. Lofted profile actually allows that missile to fall in a manner that it uses the gravity to its advantage.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shravan » 21 Mar 2010 15:13


chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 15:26

Indian Navy demonstrates Brahmos cruise missile with verticle launch

Photo included.

This would mean that the missile, which has a range of 290-km and flies at a speed of 2.8 Mach, can take on a target lying anywhere in the 360-degree range of the ship. Senior Naval officials who witnessed Sunday’s launch termed it a “landmark event.”

Three 15 A Alpha-class ships being built at Mazagon Docks in Mumbai and three more Talwar class ships (known as 1135.6 class in Russia) built at Kaliningrad in Russia will be fitted with similar Vertical Launcher modules, the sources said.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 21 Mar 2010 15:46, edited 2 times in total.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby dipak » 21 Mar 2010 15:29

Vertical-launch version of BrahMos test-fired

"The missile was launched at 1130 hours today from Indian Navy ship INS Ranvir and it manoeuvred successfully hitting the target ship. It was a perfect hit and a perfect mission," BrahMos aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai told PTI.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 15:37


Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 15:55

chacko, which ship is this ? I guess one of the kashins ?

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2793
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby JTull » 21 Mar 2010 15:59

The article mentions INS Ranvir

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 16:00

After today’s test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a "manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory," he said in New Delhi.


Why does Dr Pillai claims that part that we are the first and only country in the world ?

AFAIK Kh-22 ,SS-N-22,Kh-15 and SS-N-19 were manoeuvrable and supersonic cruise missile and some of them were in existance 2-3 decades before Brahmos.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 16:10

JTull wrote:The article mentions INS Ranvir

mea culpa. :oops:

austin, he probably refers to the S maneuver, which I don't think was displayed by any of those missiles.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 16:14

Rahul M wrote:
JTull wrote:The article mentions INS Ranvir

mea culpa. :oops:

austin, he probably refers to the S maneuver, which I don't think was displayed by any of those missiles.


The S maneuver exists in Sunburn missile during terminal stage and has been widely discussed in mid 90's , but he does not talks about any manouver but claims we are the only country to operate manouverable supersonic missile which is not true.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 16:18

thanks, I didn't know that.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 21 Mar 2010 18:21

India successfully test-fires BrahMos supersonic cruise missile

BHUBANESHWAR: India on Sunday became the first country to have a 'maneuverable' supersonic cruise missile when it successfully test-fired the vertical-launch version of 290-km range BrahMos from a warship in the Bay of Bengal off the Orissa coast.

"The vertical-launch version of missile was launched at 1130 hours today from Indian Navy ship INS Ranvir and it maneuvered successfully hitting the target ship. It was a perfect hit and a perfect mission," BrahMos aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai said.

After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a "maneuverable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory," he said in New Delhi.

In separate messages, President Pratibha Patil and Defence Minister A K Antony congratulated the BrahMos scientists and the navy for the successful test-launch. Pillai said the software of the missile was improved and today's test proved its capability of maneuverability at supersonic speeds before hitting the target.

"During the test, the missile hit a free-floating ship piercing it above the waterline and destroying it completely," BrahMos officials said.

The test-firing was part of the pre-induction tests by the Navy as moves are afoot to deploy the vertical-launch version of the missile in ships. The weapon system has been designed and developed by the Indo-Russian joint venture company.

All the three Indian Navy's Talwar class ships, under construction in Russia, have been fitted with vertical launchers and many other ships will also be equipped with them, officials said.

The navy had earlier carried out several tests of the BrahMos but most of them had been done from inclined launchers abroad INS Rajput. The missile is already in service with the Navy and its Shivalik class frigates have been equipped with it.

BrahMos has also been inducted into the Army and preparations are on to develop its air-launched and the submarine-launched versions, officials said.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 19:02

From Shiv Aroor blog
Just got off the phone with BrahMos CEO Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, delighted with the 11.30AM test of the Naval BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in a vertical launch from the Indian Navy destroyer INS Ranvir. Dr Pillai reveals the test was specifically aimed at testing the missile's accuracy when its flight path was infused with "diversionary manoueuvers" to mask the general direction of the launcher warship. The missile, vertically launched from a Universal Launcher built specifically for the BrahMos, was rolled in all directions successfully before before it smashed into the hull of INS Meen a decommissioned target vessel. Photos of actual launch will be posted shortly. Stay tuned.


Can other missiles, like Sunburn do this..
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Mar 2010 21:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fontsize edit.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 20:01

Kanson wrote:Can other missiles, like Sunburn do this....


Even if they could do that we would never know about it ,Dr Pillai has been unusually informative about Brahmos capability.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19859
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 21:01

The Russians publicize details about their systems far more than India, but in Russian language publications, to a level of far more sensitive details. Pillai does not mention system details but Russians even advertise seeker performance, lock on details. The reason Pillai talks about Brahmos is because it is public - private firm and needs to sell its products. In contrast, Russians publicize missiles like Uran, KH-31 and others which they are running and marketing is directly handled by then.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 23:31

^^^ Yes the Russians do advertise about the product when it is part of export list , We even found specs of PAD RF head which was published by DRDO in some exhibition. Journals like DRDO DSJ provides more information and specs are released , thankfully they do not find its way on mainstream media.

But for things that they do not export the Russians do not put out much data , even after 2 Decades of operation the world knows much less about Shipwreck missile capability than they know what Brahmos can do.

All the information on Brahmos has come from Indian counterpart specially from horses mouth , it is better to put a lid on information flowing out of brahmos , then to brag after each test what they did and what was achieved.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19859
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Karan M » 22 Mar 2010 00:08

"^^^ Yes the Russians do advertise about the product when it is part of export list , We even found specs of PAD RF head which was published by DRDO in some exhibition. Journals like DRDO DSJ provides more information and specs are released , thankfully they do not find its way on mainstream media."


IMHO, this only shows you are not following the level of information available on the Russian side. Let me provide a few examples.

AGAT website has lists of seekers with different ranges, Another company,was telling details of all sorts of naval seekers. These are not just export units, they give a good idea of the basic technology available to Russia for its own systems as well.

In 90's, IEEE journal published all sorts of details about S-300 series of systems inducted in Russian service, openly disclosed by Russians in interviews in order to demonstrate system capabilities and out of national pride.

Details include the level of architecture of the radars, including fire control systems. No such information is available for many US or European systems.

This is just one example, I can give many such example which you may presumably not be aware of.

DSJ information is vetted and does not contain classified details which affect operational use.

"But for things that they do not export the Russians do not put out much data , even after 2 Decades of operation the world knows much less about Shipwreck missile capability than they know what Brahmos can do."


No, this is not true. Todays Russia is not Soviet Russia where information was only available to Warsaw Pact official or within Soviet Union. Now information is everywhere.

I myself know there was a 340+ page book in cyrillic with details of A2G weaponry developed by different agencies in Russia available for purchase. It had all component details, performance specifications and other things that could be used to gauge performance, if one was so interested.

Non Russian speakers may not find it useful, but professional INT in USN will know enough about Shipwreck missile capability as they employ Russian language translators, technical professional and the Russians publish huge amount of technical literature.

You are talking of one DSJ, but Russian academic publication publish hundred of papers from operational organizations like Phazatron, Almaz Antey with details of technology development and progress.

They have significant failures also in keeping data private.

Famous issue of stealth from a russian paper apart, manuals of Su-27 were leaked online when baseline version without upgrade is still operational in Russian AF.

All the information on Brahmos has come from Indian counterpart specially from horses mouth , it is better to put a lid on information flowing out of brahmos , then to brag after each test what they did and what was achieved.


This is very illogical/ unreasonable talk, if I may say so since it is just setting up Pillai/Brahmos corp to fail.

If Brahmos does not tell what it achieves people will mock Pillai for just saying successful test and not giving details. "All successful tests, but what does it do"

If he gives details, which are very generic in nature and do not affect operational capability, then people get paranoid.

It is important that the world, the public including taxpayer, and the enemy know that Brahmos is a potent, successful weapon. That is the basis of its deterrence capability.

And talking of what he has achieved or his team has achieved is bragging?

Then why dont you go to US, Europe, Russia and every country and tell them to keep quiet after every significant achievement. Lockheed Martin gives detailed press release after every test flight of JSF, no matter how minor it is. UK gave details of recent naval SAM tests including performance against low RCS targets. Russia during MiG-29K tests is even telling about RCS reduction features, even featured on AWST.

Pillai has set a good standard in making Brahmos Aerospace accessible in term of achievements, without divulging any operational gains to opponent and he should continue with his present work.

What Brahmos has achieved is remarkable. For a weapon to be routinely available on time, on budget for service needs shows effective program and technology management. He should in fact publicize it more, and derive useful lessons learnt which may be leveraged across other JVs such as MRSAM/LRSAM programs.

And if all information on Brahmos has come from India, that is because an Indian is the CEO, and is responsible for the performance of the company, not some Russian.

In contrast, Russians give 100's of interviews every year to defence magazines, to their media, print thousands of brochures and reveal all sorts of operation related performance and claims.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 22 Mar 2010 01:05

the Brahmos launch doesn't seem to use a gas generator to clear the VLS tube, isn't that a requirement for sub launched ones? next one should be a underwater pontoon launched one hopefully

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srai » 22 Mar 2010 05:19

IMO, India should look to develop Brahmos-Mini version with the following specs:

* weight: 750kg [about1/4 the weight of Brahmos-I 3000kg]
* warhead: 150kg [about 1/2 the weight of Brahmos-I warhead 300kg]
* range: 150km [about 50% range of the Brahmos-I 300km]
* variants: (ship launched, submarine launched, air launched) AShM, ASM, ARM

This size is ideal for various reasons:
1. It would be able to be carried by all IAF types (LCA, Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage-2000, MRCA, Jaguar).

2. It would allow standardization by replacing various types in the IAF/IN service, such as Exocet, Harpoon, Sea Eagle, SS-N-25, KH-31, etc)

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 05:31

so you want a missile to have 1/4th weight but perform more than 50% of the duties?
For example what is the weight of the navigation and all systems apart from fuel? Obviously if we change these it becoms a brand new missile anyway.

Lets say WAG they are 30% of the weight, oops you are already over weight by 5% without even going one inch.

Now if it was 10% of the original weight, your systems has to go 50% of distance with a fuel of only 15 % as compared to 90% of original.

Now if you talk of better propellants and all, cant you use those in the original missile as well?

Sir jee, you are taking broucher bashing to a new level.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srai » 22 Mar 2010 05:44

ravi_ku wrote:so you want a missile to have 1/4th weight but perform more than 50% of the duties?
For example what is the weight of the navigation and all systems apart from fuel? Obviously if we change these it becoms a brand new missile anyway.

Lets say WAG they are 30% of the weight, oops you are already over weight by 5% without even going one inch.

Now if it was 10% of the original weight, your systems has to go 50% of distance with a fuel of only 15 % as compared to 90% of original.

Now if you talk of better propellants and all, cant you use those in the original missile as well?

Sir jee, you are taking broucher bashing to a new level.


Isn't it obvious by your own calculations that internal subsystems will have to change :D

Yes ... it will be a new missile in a new operational category. A lot of subsystems could be reused in this "mini" version ... but ofcourse will require some modifications.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 22 Mar 2010 06:30

srai wrote:IMO, India should look to develop Brahmos-Mini version with the following specs:

* weight: 750kg [about1/4 the weight of Brahmos-I 3000kg]
* warhead: 150kg [about 1/2 the weight of Brahmos-I warhead 300kg]
* range: 150km [about 50% range of the Brahmos-I 300km]
* variants: (ship launched, submarine launched, air launched) AShM, ASM, ARM

This size is ideal for various reasons:
1. It would be able to be carried by all IAF types (LCA, Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage-2000, MRCA, Jaguar).

2. It would allow standardization by replacing various types in the IAF/IN service, such as Exocet, Harpoon, Sea Eagle, SS-N-25, KH-31, etc)


Many moons back similar missile was proposed in the name of modifying Akash SAM.

An air launched Akash can be used as a ARM and AGM.

But again after recalling the IAF ASQR that came out couple of years back in search of a capable AGM with a near 1000kg weight and should be capable of launching from all current and future aircrafts.Then came a modified AAD in ma mind with a mere 1200kg -----it can be carried by all existing aircraft (atleast 2 on each). Air launched AAD with a speed of >4.5 Mach will make interception harder than brahmos.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2010 07:34

yes perhaps AAD will be the future micro-brahmos and replace the KH31 and KH59 in our inventory as well impart A2G strike to a much wider range of a/c.
such a weapon is needed for hard targets like radars and airbases which will respond back with a volley of SAMs.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2010 07:38

First phase of ballistic missile shield to be deployed in 2012

the first phase of the indigenous Ballistic Missile Defence System to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles of less than 2,000-km range is expected to be deployed in two years.

Disclosing this to The Hindu recently, V.K. Saraswat, Director-General, Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister, said the first phase would be made operational through the new concept of ‘capability-based deployment.' The Air Defence Programme has been divided into two parts — depending upon the threat perception. While the first category of threats pertains to enemy missiles with less than 2,000-km range, the second type belongs to those with more than 2,000 km. Both the phases will have two layers. The aim of the two-tier system is to first destroy an incoming missile, at a higher altitude, in the exo-atmosphere above 50 km. If that does not happen, the endo-atmospheric interception will take place up at the height of 30 km from the earth.

-----------------------------------

With a fresh interceptor missile test in the endo-atmosphere planned in a couple of months, some more trials were planned for 2010-11 and 2011-12 to ensure reliability, repeatability and suitability for deploying phase-1assets, Dr. Saraswat said.

Simultaneously, DRDO scientists have started work on phase-II solutions. It requires radars of longer range and new hypersonic interceptor missiles flying at Mach 6 with agility and the capability to discriminate against ballistic missile defence counter measures. “Our effort is to have interception at very high altitudes, and the entire system will be able to handle multiple, simultaneous attacks,” he said.

A crucial requirement for the second phase is a floating test-range — a complete launch station from which interceptors will be fired. Scientists have started designing the ship and associated systems such as radar, mission control centre, launch control centre, communication network and many other equipment needed for phase-II trials.

The ‘capability-based deployment,' under which a system would be put to use, as it got perfected, had paid rich dividends for some countries, Dr. Saraswat said. The entire work on the two phases was planned to be completed by 2016.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 22 Mar 2010 07:43

Kanson wrote:From Shiv Aroor blog
Just got off the phone with BrahMos CEO Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, delighted with the 11.30AM test of the Naval BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in a vertical launch from the Indian Navy destroyer INS Ranvir. Dr Pillai reveals the test was specifically aimed at testing the missile's accuracy when its flight path was infused with "diversionary manoueuvers" to mask the general direction of the launcher warship. The missile, vertically launched from a Universal Launcher built specifically for the BrahMos, was rolled in all directions successfully before before it smashed into the hull of INS Meen a decommissioned target vessel. Photos of actual launch will be posted shortly. Stay tuned.


Can other missiles, like Sunburn do this..

Yeap Moskit could do most of what Yakhont/Brahmos is capable of with the exception of vls launch (obviously).

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 22 Mar 2010 07:53

was rolled in all directions successfully before before it smashed into the hull

i wonder if Brahmos CEO is alluding to some kind or many kind of manoeuver for this missile.

If i'm not wrong, from open source, Suburn is perfected to do only one type of manoeuver at the terminal stage. May be anyone reading russian lit, can bring to light abt the capabilities of Sunburn.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 22 Mar 2010 07:55

Kanson wrote:
was rolled in all directions successfully before before it smashed into the hull

i wonder if Brahmos CEO is alluding to some kind or many kind of manoeuver for this missile.

If i'm not wrong, from open source, Suburn is perfected to do only one type of manoeuver at the terminal stage. May be anyone reading russian lit, can bring to light abt the capabilities of Sunburn.

I believe he is referring to altering its flight path to approach the target from different direction most modern AShM are capable of that.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 22 Mar 2010 07:59

Yes thats the way normally one can interpret. But i'm trying to see that wrt to this statement.

After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a "maneuverable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory," he said in New Delhi.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests