Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[srin]

Prahaar would fit the bill easily for the modification into a Air laucnhed Anti Rad missile, 1280Kg, 7.3m, 35 km cieling, 200kg warhead and speed around mach 2+

Weight reduction to 1180 with a 100kg HE CL-20 warhead, perhaps a bit shorter so that it can neatly fit on the LCA. If under 1200kg, LCA can carry 3 of these..interesting. I wonder if Prahaar can be modified into a SAM, ground launched anyways, launcher is ready, has a flight cieling of 35km...ideal, have a stregthened body, smaller 50kg HE CL-20 proxy warhead. However a more powerful engine perhaps is required in order to attain faster speeds, if it can hit speed of mach 4.5+ it could be the ideal missile. Love the fact that the launcher is ready. Missile is light enough too. A powerful active radar seeker, data link and control surfaces + tvc for maneuvering would allow it to become a SAM. The radar is can be ready quickly too. FCR can be an upgraded AESA Rohini..

Whereas a KH-31P is 600 kg, 100 km range, solid fuelled, mach 3, 100 kg warhead. HARM is 360 kg, 100 km range, solid fulled, mach 2, 60 kg warhead.

Why would IAF use this if it can get KH-31Ps which are half the weight ?

[Varoon Shekhar]

http://flonnet.com/stories/20130208300205300.htm

Latest Frontline issue, has article on DRDL, some info about hypersonic missile etc.

[Sagar G]

While the DRDO will make the propulsion system, the actuation system and the seeker

If this is true then we have finally overcome our seeker barriers in missile tech.

[abhik]

^^^
Anti-runway specific munitions are quite common, for example the Matra Durandal. Note that it is designed to be dropped from low altitudes which makes it perfect for a cruise missile.

I saw that too but didn't post it cause it isn't a CM so it won't solve the problem that tsarkar garu pointed out.

The point is that the problem has already been solved by munitions like the Durandal which are ubiquitous. There is no reason to believe that only ballistic missiles can do the job.

[SagarAg]

I saw that too but didn't post it cause it isn't a CM so it won't solve the problem that tsarkar garu pointed out.

The point is that the problem has already been solved by munitions like the Durandal which are ubiquitous. There is no reason to believe that only ballistic missiles can do the job.

Sirjee, the point is not munitions like Durandal which are ubiquitous(you should hear me pronounce this word ) Its about bombing enemy air-fields without actually flying there and bombing them using fighter jets to prevent their unnecessarily loss and loss of precious pilots by the well guarded bases.

[Sagar G]

The point is that the problem has already been solved by munitions like the Durandal which are ubiquitous. There is no reason to believe that only ballistic missiles can do the job.

Adding to what SagarAg has already pointed out Durandal doesn't provide a safe distance from which bombing of enemy airstrip can be carried out hence putting our men and machines at grave risk, tsarkar see's a solution in the form of A4 and I am saying that CM's can do the same job much more cheaply and without starting an unintentional nuke war with a nuclear adversary who might see the launch of an A4 as a nuke attack.

[Lalmohan]

durandal is a 70's vintage weapon - requires the attacking aircraft to fly over the runway, which as GW1 showed is a pretty suicidal thing to do - RAF tornados had to be switched to high level PGM attacks after losing aircraft to low level overhead runs

a standoff weapon is the better option these days

[vasu raya]

Since the ARM is a long lead time development, maybe they can consider conformal antennas on the missile body and not just one seeker at the front-end similar to new generation fighters

Then the development of a EMP warhead as an option as well

[Shrinivasan]

We didn't buy the Kh-31 for our MKI's? It would be incredibly stupid not to.

We have. There are pics available.

It could either be KH-31A or KH-31P IMVHO

[Shrinivasan]

Septimus, a CL-20 warhead is not available currently and might not be available in the near future... for almost half a decade HMX would be the main explosive in our missiles/warheads (apart from our detergents)

[nachiket]

We have. There are pics available.

It could either be KH-31A or KH-31P IMVHO

I did find this pic: http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Su- ... rypton.jpg
It's too big to post inline.
Can anyone identify the exact version? Hopefully we bought the Kh-31P. We have other AShMs in our inventory. But no other ARMs, although wiki says we operate the older Kh-58 as well. Can't really trust wiki on this.

[arnabh]

Missile designer
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 205300.htm

[Singha]

we also have a limited number of the matra armat missile for the mirages I think. but thats a aeging weapon and may have reached EOL by now without replacement. the french now seem to field no dedicated ARM but use the rafale spectra type kit to id radars and launch AASM ? the USAF is also going the same way (kill radars without ARMs by using other standoff weapons like jassm) and have only funded some seeker improvements to HARM while USN has funded dedicated growlers and the next gen of harm.

the problem is obvious - a 100km weapon can take out smaller radars but even the garden variety 3D search radars come with 200-300km range these days. and SAM shooters can be in a ring around this radar to take shots at any attacker.

so a much more long range weapon in the JASSM/Scalp/KEPD mould is needed to take down S300 family of radars and it better be stealthy as well with very smart sensors. nirbhay ALCM seems like only feasible option for us.

at those long ranges, it is both risky and sometimes not feasible to get those radars to light up or send in platforms to 'probe' without attracting missile shots and risking lives. so the big khan atleast has moved to other means like perhaps imint or gmti platforms locating these radars and sending JASSMs after them no matter they are emitting or not .

HARM was ok in the old days, the game has changed now with proliferation of long range radars and distributed SAM nets...emitter could 200km away but just as you line up for ARM shot, a SAM unit below your chair goes active with its local radar and takes shots...

[sum]

A low-profile collaborative project between India and Israel that is fully under way is the LR-SAM. It is a high-performance, long-range missile that can be launched from ships and land. A number of flight trials of the LR-SAM have been conducted in Israel. While the DRDO will make the propulsion system, the actuation system and the seeker, Israel will come up with the avionics and other electronic systems. Israel will transfer the LR-SAM technology to India, and Bharat Dynamics will start producing the missile from the year-end. Another joint project with Israel is the Medium Range-Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM).

So the LR-SAM is set for production from year-end. Very good news indeed!

[member_20317]

A low-profile collaborative project between India and Israel that is fully under way is the LR-SAM. It is a high-performance, long-range missile that can be launched from ships and land. A number of flight trials of the LR-SAM have been conducted in Israel. While the DRDO will make the propulsion system, the actuation system and the seeker, Israel will come up with the avionics and other electronic systems. Israel will transfer the LR-SAM technology to India, and Bharat Dynamics will start producing the missile from the year-end. Another joint project with Israel is the Medium Range-Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM).

So the LR-SAM is set for production from year-end. Very good news indeed!

^^^ the seeker is Indian? That is impressive. There was a picture of a seeker put up by a defence enthusiast kunal verma on the net. That was a big seeker. Is it that the DRDO has been successful in miniaturising the seeker at least for LR-SAM?


Added later:
Ok sorry it was kunal biswas, not verma
here is the link

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 012/page20

Added later still:
Ok could not have been the miniaturisation as the pics are from defexpo 12. Could be that the LR-SAM seeker is an entirely different animal and that creates a greater possiblity that the picture by kunal biswas was of the seeker for the ABM as is being pointed out by another user thereon.

[SSridhar]

Missile designer
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 205300.htm

Was happy to see another woman missile designer.

[SSridhar]

^^^ the seeker is Indian? That is impressive. There was a picture of a seeker put up by a defence enthusiast kunal verma on the net. That was a big seeker. Is it that the DRDO has been successful in miniaturising the seeker at least for LR-SAM?

Nag uses both IIR & mmW developed and made locally.

[k prasad]

Once again Smerch is not in the same class as Prahaar. It is Pinaka (2) not Prahaar that competes with it

On the contrary Pinaka 2 is not a competitor to the Smerch, its just an enhancement of the existing Pinaka. But the Smerch and the Prahaar will be competing with each other.

There is a big difference Abhik, and the Prahaar gives us an ATACMs-like capability that the smerch cannot match.

a) Smerch are unguided rockets, and the max range is 70-90 km. The entire rocket weighs 800 kg, with a 243 kg warhead.

b) Prahaar is a guided missile, with a max range of about 150 km. Weight - 1300 kg, 200 kg warhead. This puts it bang in the Theatre / Tactical BM category, along with the Iskander, LORA and ACATMS. Very different from an unguided rocket that requires large scale attacks to be successful

Also, with a weight thats 1.5X that of the Smerch Rocket (2.25X Kinetic energy), and an accuracy that'd be far higher than even a GPS corrected Smerch, the amount of clinical destructive power that the Prahaar can bring to the battlefield is much higher than the Smerch.

The other aspect is in terms of range is the extra amount of destructive battlefield initiative that a Prahaar will give vis a vis even a 120 km ER Smerch. When you can hit an extra 40 km into the enemy territory using a highly mobile, easy to mobilize and use system, that essentially prevents him from deploying a lot of the systems that give him battlefield advantages in that theatre - things like Supply Depots, SAM Systems and Radars, Long Range Arty, etc. A longer reach always helps. Mind you, a lot of these things require high precision attacks with a lot of killing power, which a guided missile is, as opposed to a more area focussed system like rockets.

The Prahaar will complement the Smerch and Pinakas. It wont compete with it. Especially since the Prahaar will be much more expensive than a dumb rocket, and thus, would not justify extensive usage. Doesnt mean its use wont be required though - US fired close to 500 ATACMS during Desert Storm.

My only small grudge is about them making the Prahaar long and thin - the ATACMS is shorter and stubbier, which allows it to be fired from the M270 MLRS itself. Imagine being able to deploy Prahaars from the Pinaka launchers. That would make any Porki dhoti shiver, along with making deployment easier, and detection much harder.

[member_20453]

Prahaar would fit the bill easily for the modification into a Air laucnhed Anti Rad missile, 1280Kg, 7.3m, 35 km cieling, 200kg warhead and speed around mach 2+

Weight reduction to 1180 with a 100kg HE CL-20 warhead, perhaps a bit shorter so that it can neatly fit on the LCA. If under 1200kg, LCA can carry 3 of these..interesting. I wonder if Prahaar can be modified into a SAM, ground launched anyways, launcher is ready, has a flight cieling of 35km...ideal, have a stregthened body, smaller 50kg HE CL-20 proxy warhead. However a more powerful engine perhaps is required in order to attain faster speeds, if it can hit speed of mach 4.5+ it could be the ideal missile. Love the fact that the launcher is ready. Missile is light enough too. A powerful active radar seeker, data link and control surfaces + tvc for maneuvering would allow it to become a SAM. The radar is can be ready quickly too. FCR can be an upgraded AESA Rohini..

Whereas a KH-31P is 600 kg, 100 km range, solid fuelled, mach 3, 100 kg warhead. HARM is 360 kg, 100 km range, solid fulled, mach 2, 60 kg warhead.

Why would IAF use this if it can get KH-31Ps which are half the weight ?

I just think it is a good start since the airframe is good, lower the weight and dimensions and Prahaar could be used, just need a seeker. I think it speeds up development, testing and production if there is commonality. The range of the missile could also be higher allowing for safer targetting of radars.

[Singha]

we have somehow never tried to make a fat stubby atacms type missile. perhaps its somehow harder or our long and thin designs are more proven from past work and hence low risk.

deft packaging, modularity, commonality is a old american strength.

[Sagar G]

Nag uses both IIR & mmW developed and made locally.

Only the IIR one is going to be used in the production version the mmW one is still under development IIRC it has a range of 2 Km as of now hence not yet being in use. Thinking of which the range is enough for being used in shoulder launched missile though wt. would be the deciding criteria.

[abhik]

Sirjee, the point is not munitions like Durandal which are ubiquitous(you should hear me pronounce this word ) Its about bombing enemy air-fields without actually flying there and bombing them using fighter jets to prevent their unnecessarily loss and loss of precious pilots by the well guarded bases.

Adding to what SagarAg has already pointed out Durandal doesn't provide a safe distance from which bombing of enemy airstrip can be carried out hence putting our men and machines at grave risk, tsarkar see's a solution in the form of A4 and I am saying that CM's can do the same job much more cheaply and without starting an unintentional nuke war with a nuclear adversary who might see the launch of an A4 as a nuke attack.

My original point(which is on the same lines as yours but maybe not expressed clearly) was that CM's like Nirbhai can deliver Durandal type sub-munitions to make quick work of runways. I think it is likely that the 20-something different payload packages being designed for the Nirbhai will include an anti-runway configuration. I don't buy the arguments that tsarkar-ji is putting forward to defend his speculation that hi-end missiles like the A-4/5 have any significant conventional use.

durandal is a 70's vintage weapon - requires the attacking aircraft to fly over the runway, which as GW1 showed is a pretty suicidal thing to do - RAF tornados had to be switched to high level PGM attacks after losing aircraft to low level overhead runs

a standoff weapon is the better option these days

And that stand-off weapon can be the Nirbhai.

[SaiK]

Israelis are our true friends.
We should never forget that
no matter how much price we pay.
Our relationship with them is an asset.

-not marketing here, but saying out of reviewing various deals we have had with them.

[Aditya_V]

Israelis are our true friends.
We should never forget that
no matter how much price we pay.
Our relationship with them is an asset.

-not marketing here, but saying out of reviewing various deals we have had with them.

Not exactly true, if USA allowed they would have been selling a lot of weapons to Chinese who in turn will be reselling them to Pakis. Yes but they are reliable suppliers.

[SaiK]

I read astra's intercept range is 44km. I presume, that is the range of the data link support, and after that terminal phase kicks in. [correct?]

now, that 20km homing is maintained for the astra-2 (80km wala) or the tail chaser has an extended range?

==

btw, there is a mismatch in the frontline article and the pdf here:
http://iiscaa.parjanya.net/client/iisca ... gramme.pdf

check out the technologies what Israel provides and what India does... I think chindu messed it up.

[srin]

Israelis are our true friends.
We should never forget that
no matter how much price we pay.
Our relationship with them is an asset.

-not marketing here, but saying out of reviewing various deals we have had with them.

No such thing as true friends, just mutual true self interests. They think it is in their interest to be chummy with us, and we think it is in our interest to be chummy with them.

[abhik]

There is a big difference Abhik, and the Prahaar gives us an ATACMs-like capability that the smerch cannot match.

a) Smerch are unguided rockets, and the max range is 70-90 km. The entire rocket weighs 800 kg, with a 243 kg warhead.

b) Prahaar is a guided missile, with a max range of about 150 km. Weight - 1300 kg, 200 kg warhead. This puts it bang in the Theatre / Tactical BM category, along with the Iskander, LORA and ACATMS. Very different from an unguided rocket that requires large scale attacks to be successful

The days of unguided "rockets" like the Smerch in the present form are limited. They may be unguided but they are still quite expensive. And with reducing cost guidance systems(esp. the GPS variety), adding a GPS guidance will marginally increase cost but massively improve effectiveness. The US has already deployed GPS guided version of the MLRS. Just as dumb air launched/dropped munitions are becoming increasing rare in modern air forces, expensive unguided rockets will also become extinct.
As the line between a "rocket" and "missile" is blurred, they will also have to compete with each other.

Also, with a weight thats 1.5X that of the Smerch Rocket (2.25X Kinetic energy), and an accuracy that'd be far higher than even a GPS corrected Smerch, the amount of clinical destructive power that the Prahaar can bring to the battlefield is much higher than the Smerch.

The other aspect is in terms of range is the extra amount of destructive battlefield initiative that a Prahaar will give vis a vis even a 120 km ER Smerch. When you can hit an extra 40 km into the enemy territory using a highly mobile, easy to mobilize and use system, that essentially prevents him from deploying a lot of the systems that give him battlefield advantages in that theatre - things like Supply Depots, SAM Systems and Radars, Long Range Arty, etc. A longer reach always helps. Mind you, a lot of these things require high precision attacks with a lot of killing power, which a guided missile is, as opposed to a more area focussed system like rockets.
.

As far as range and payload are concerned at the end of the day we can have only finite set of systems to tack care of the entire spectrum of needs. If you say that the extra 40km in range justifies a separate system, one could also argue for an entirely new missile system with a range of 200 km and another one with 240 km and so on. But it would be best if we concentrate on building up numbers of fewer types than having paltry amounts of many niche weapons. And I think the specifications of the two systems are broadly overlapping so it one-or-the-other.

[AbhiJ]

A low-profile collaborative project between India and Israel that is fully under way is the LR-SAM. It is a high-performance, long-range missile that can be launched from ships and land. A number of flight trials of the LR-SAM have been conducted in Israel. While the DRDO will make the propulsion system, the actuation system and the seeker, Israel will come up with the avionics and other electronic systems. Israel will transfer the LR-SAM technology to India, and Bharat Dynamics will start producing the missile from the year-end. Another joint project with Israel is the Medium Range-Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM).

^^^ the seeker is Indian? That is impressive. There was a picture of a seeker put up by a defence enthusiast kunal verma on the net. That was a big seeker. Is it that the DRDO has been successful in miniaturising the seeker at least for LR-SAM?


Added later:
Ok sorry it was kunal biswas, not verma
here is the link

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 012/page20

Added later still:
Ok could not have been the miniaturisation as the pics are from defexpo 12. Could be that the LR-SAM seeker is an entirely different animal and that creates a greater possiblity that the picture by kunal biswas was of the seeker for the ABM as is being pointed out by another user thereon.

This source says the Seeker is Israeli made

[SaiK]

ref:^^.. well a document from IISc should be more valid and true than DDM.

[Prem Kumar]

All reports of LRSAM so far have maintained the seeker to be Israeli. Either Chindu has a scoop or its good-ole' typo. I'll vote for the latter

[Sagar G]

Israelis are our true friends.
We should never forget that
no matter how much price we pay.
Our relationship with them is an asset.

-not marketing here, but saying out of reviewing various deals we have had with them.

Yes but they are reliable suppliers.

I had said this before that Israelie's are "uccha koti haramkhor". I would have given the reason why I am using such harsh statement for a state which seems very friendly and also supplied us with tech but I can't/won't cause the info is very sensitive in nature hence would only advice fellow BRF's that never to form any such misconception about any state with which India deals. I think I read the statement here only which said "There are no friends only interests", wise words I say.

[John]

The days of unguided "rockets" like the Smerch in the present form are limited. They may be unguided but they are still quite expensive. And with reducing cost guidance systems(esp. the GPS variety), adding a GPS guidance will marginally increase cost but massively improve effectiveness. The US has already deployed GPS guided version of the MLRS. Just as dumb air launched/dropped munitions are becoming increasing rare in modern air forces, expensive unguided rockets will also become extinct.

Prahaar will still be quite expensive compared to even gps fitted Smerch or Pinaka rocket, for example ATACMS cost more than half million vs less than 100k for M31 rockets.

[Prem Kumar]

The days of unguided "rockets" like the Smerch in the present form are limited. They may be unguided but they are still quite expensive. And with reducing cost guidance systems(esp. the GPS variety), adding a GPS guidance will marginally increase cost but massively improve effectiveness. The US has already deployed GPS guided version of the MLRS. Just as dumb air launched/dropped munitions are becoming increasing rare in modern air forces, expensive unguided rockets will also become extinct.
As the line between a "rocket" and "missile" is blurred, they will also have to compete with each other.

Its not as simple as strapping on a GPS receiver. The rocket would need to be able to make trajectory corrections accordingly. So, it needs the corresponding electronics and more importantly the control surfaces. Some redesign would be required.

[Prem Kumar]

we have somehow never tried to make a fat stubby atacms type missile. perhaps its somehow harder or our long and thin designs are more proven from past work and hence low risk.

deft packaging, modularity, commonality is a old american strength.

We are also getting there. In the Frontline interview, the DRDL scientist said that they are close to achieving commonality in onboard computers, seekers, propulsion etc.

Modularity & commonality is also a function of experience and maturity of the systems. Once we have tried/built/tested/failed/learned enough, we can also get there.

We are there in some areas like the ones mentioned above. We are not quite there in areas like metallurgy & propellants methinks. Agni-V stage 1 being maraging steel is one example. Propellants is another area which I think limits the range of our missiles. So, we will have a bit of a mish-mash of dimensions for some time.

[vivek_ahuja]

we have somehow never tried to make a fat stubby atacms type missile. perhaps its somehow harder or our long and thin designs are more proven from past work and hence low risk.

deft packaging, modularity, commonality is a old american strength.

I worry as always that we are ending up with far too many different missile artillery systems (tactical and strategic) for the Army to deploy them in numbers. Every year we are adding new missile types and no comments on numbers deployed etc. Then one odd day we hear that the Pinaka, for all its technical success, is being cut off at the knees because of production and quality control mess-ups.

With so many different systems coming online, is there any expectation that these production and quality issues will reduce? Frankly, all indications are that these problems are going to get worse with OFB and BEL as time goes on.

We need to stop this fad of developing a new missile type for every hundred kilometers and instead focus on producing in numbers those already deployed. While every new missile type that comes along is certainly exciting to discuss at the forum here, it takes a lot more effort to turn that new tech into something that makes the enemy fear in his boots. This is achieved by heavy deployment in army hands in the field.

Of course, these questions are swept under the rug with statements like: "It will be taken care of in time. So no worry. Now let's talk about the Agni 2.5 that will fit between Agni 2 and Agni 2.75.

JMVHO and all that.

-A frustrated soul.

[srai]

^^^

What you have highlighted is true. But that comes later in the process. At the current stage, Indian scientists are just emerging from a successful acquisition of core competency in missile technologies. There is a flurry of activity in all different spheres (air, land, and sea) with multiple teams taking initiative and making breakthroughs. For instance, Prahar SAM was developed for AAD, but has been reused and modified to be a tactical SSM. Brahmos-1 is evolving into a smaller Brahmos-3. Others are being updated to Mk.2/3 standards. IMO, all of these will begin to settle down in the next 15-20 years with a maturity in missile development and variety matrix (AAM, SSM, ASM, ARM, etc). Mass commonality and modularity will occur then.

[member_20036]

Some info of Astra BVRAAM
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2013 ... a.html?m=1

[suryag]

Missile designer
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 205300.htm

Was happy to see another woman missile designer.

The next in line is Astra, the air-to-air missile, whose development trials were completed in December 2012. On Saraswat’s insistence, the Astra of yore, which weighed 300 kg, has been totally reconfigured now. It is now a sleek and trim-looking missile, weighing under 170 kg and is about four metres long. It can travel at supersonic speed and intercept enemy aircraft and destroy it in head-on or tail-chase mode. Three successful flight trials of Astra in ground-to-air mode took place on December 21, 22 and 24, 2012. While two flight trials took place against an electronic target, in the third, Astra destroyed Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft. These trials have paved the way for its test-launch from an aircraft in 2013.

“It is ready for air-to-air launch,” said S. Venugopal, Project Director, Astra, on December 24. A young team of DRDO engineers, aged between 25 and 35, was behind Astra’s three consecutive successes. They “struck a balance between the stability, controllability and agility of the missile, its vehicle dynamics, control algorithms and on-board technology”, Venugopal said.

In Chakrabarti’s analysis, the DRDL had now understood Astra’s dynamics in air. A lot of data had been collected. “After we develop the systems thoroughly, we will fire it from the aircraft,” he said. Ultimately, the Sukhoi-30 MKI, the Mirage and the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas will be armed with Astra

So the Astra of 2012 is an entirely different Astra

[merlin]

AFAIK the Astra never weighed 300 kgs. So what gives?

[Singha]

it could have had they copied the super 530d as a starting point.