Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Mar 2013 23:00

Philip wrote:In terms of range,it and Shourya straddle similar range,therefore which missile would be better used for tactical strike,a ballistic or cruise missile and which would have better survivability? In the Paki context,we have several options as mentioned above.The missile has both conventional and nuclear warhead options.What is/will be the protocol for its different modes?

At 10 m Shaurya is longer than Nirbhay and at 6.2t is also heavier. Shaurya can deliver a warhead up to 1000 kg, far higher than Nirbhay. Flight characteristics too are very different and so is the time to target. Nirbhay can be carries by Su30-MKI and can be launched from very near the border. In fact if the MKI's can breach the air-defences of the enemy then Nirbhay can even be launched from deep within the enemy territory. Shaurya will most likely be deployed away from the border and certainly never from withing the enemy territory unless we have complete ground control. So overall operational flexibility of our armed forces increases.

Shaurya should be seen as a replacement for Agni-I.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Mar 2013 23:05

Any strategy in choosing the cruise speed for nirbhay. why .8 mach and why not mach 1.2 or mach .6?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 16 Mar 2013 23:10

0.8 machs may be the outer edge in Himalayas. A cheap non-stealth CM, going long distances in hour long flights, popping up, dunking down every obstacle. What is the speed like for fighters in such nape of the earth flying?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 16 Mar 2013 23:16

Indranil, please check out this link.
The relevant part is in the section titled "High Wing Effect" which states:

"Aircraft with high wings (wings which are above the c of g) will have more lateral stability than aircraft which have low wings (below the c of g.) This is often referred to as the pendulum effect. Essentially the mass of the aircraft tends to swing back under the wing when disturbed laterally. Conversely the low wing aircraft is unstable laterally, just as a pendulum would be if you balanced it upside down. The movie below demonstrates this effect."

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Mar 2013 23:22

Victorji,

1. High wings add to lateral stability. But it has nothing to do with mass., but has everything to do with aerodynamics. Therefore, low wing does not add instability. It just does not provide the stability that the high wing does.
2. There are various ways of providing or removing lateral stability. All of them have to do with aerodynamics. Weight cannot create any moment for a plane. The other ways of effecting lateral stability is through dihedral and wing sweep.

I told you the fact. Whether you believe it or not is upto you now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Mar 2013 03:37

Karan M wrote:About the only future challenge with the program is going to be the long term availability of the engines, until & unless HAL's Laghu Shakti, or GTRE's small gas turbine is already ready (which seems unlikely).

GTRE's and HAL's efforts are one and the same. They are both collaborating on Laghu Shakti. Like you, I am very interested to know what powered the maiden launch? I am also interested to know if future Lakshya's will get Laghu-shakti as their engine for extended ranges.

Unrelated to missiles, but related to aeroengines. I don't know what is the intended use of HAL's 20kN turbofan engine.
1. Turbofan version of Saras/Do-228?
2. IUSAV? (If yes, why?)
3. Any HALE version of Rustom-2 in the making?
4. Midlife refit of IJT engines?
5. Does any other indigenous efforts come to mind. Because, no other aircraft manufacturer will import a non proven aero-engine.

P.S. I will cross post it in the aero-engines page. We can discuss it there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2013 06:50

It maybe for a global hawk hale uav.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Mar 2013 09:30

indranilroy wrote:
pentaiah wrote:Indranilroy sir ji
This might evoke your interest

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00843.html
Thank you. But no sir/ji please.

OT..but why are you so sensitive to ji/garu/sir please?

venku_Raj · Post by **venku_Raj** » 17 Mar 2013 09:33

Sukhoi chased Nirbhay missile in Test , proven system might have failed : DRDO

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2013 10:08

venku_Raj wrote:Sukhoi chased Nirbhay missile in Test , proven system might have failed : DRDO

Over hundreds of missile scientists in Bangalore and Hyderabad have begun their investigations in the form of post-flight analysis of the aborted mission of India’s first subsonic cruise missile, Nirbhay, recently. Sources confirmed to Express on Saturday that the missile had successfully navigated two way-points during its 19-minute flight.

As reported by Express earlier, the preliminary investigations have found that the missile’s vertical lift-off, booster performance, control actuators, ignition of engine, and wing deployment performed as per the text-book format. “We found no shocks or jerks during the deployment of wings. The entire avionics functioned normally. The missile navigated through first two way-points. The missile drifted from the path due to the improper functioning of one of the electronic sub-systems,” sources said.

While all the new technologies onboard the missile is said to have done their duties, what’s worrying the DRDO scientists is that a proven system might have given up at the crucial time. “The radars located at Chandipur, Dhamra, Wheeler’s Island, Paradeep, Puri (near Konark) and Gopalpur tracked the missile. For the first time, we have had a chase aircraft in the form of a Sukhoi following the missile. The Sukhoi gave us the exact location where the missile fell after the mission was aborted,” sources said.

The scientists have planned eight to 10 way-points for the missile for its full duration (one hour, approximately 1000 km) of the flight. While DRDO refuses to accept it as a failure, considering that all systems developed for the cruise vehicle have functioned till the time the mission was aborted. “The scientists are analysing all available data, captured by various systems, placed along the course of the missile. We will be able to find out the exact cause soon and we have nothing to hide. Another Nirbhay should be ready for flight within six months,” sources said.

Its a flight anomaly and not a failure.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2013 10:26

hopefully the proven component was not sourced from mongolia.
great khan has a nasty habit of introducing QC flaws into items it does not want to work reliably. or even hidden switches activated by satellite at an opportune time in live eqpt.

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 17 Mar 2013 11:21

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iitb- ... em/1089278

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2013 21:22

It is juvenile for the DRDO to claim "success",as if it was a "business launch",the missile would've failed to eliminate its target.A "partial success" would've been a better claim.From the official info give out ,at a critical point in the flight ,something failed,suspected of being a malfunctioning "electronic sub-syetem".In the age of sourcing of electronic components being a liability if any Chinese parts especially are used,bans on them in western countries,the remote chance of sabotage should not be ruled out,as in any crisis,the same technique could be used to defeat a missile.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Mar 2013 21:33

Ramanaji

Remember you posted some article on how small component creep can get magnified in complex systems during the Fukushima incident?

I think something like that happened in this case.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2013 23:10

It is juvenile for the DRDO to claim "success",as if it was a "business launch",the missile would've failed to eliminate its target.

Tests such as this are statistical in nature. Given they have identified the problem it is normal to declare it a success since the data points should fall (I expect them to at least) within the confidence level. These are very normal procedures in testing - something perhaps you are not familiar with and thus that comment of yours (and that is OK, not everyone is).

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Mar 2013 23:17

Philip wrote:It is juvenile for the DRDO to claim "success"

When the hell did DRDO claim it as "success" ???

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Mar 2013 23:44

well it is juvenile to counter claim as failure too.
as we discussed this a while ago, and people just don't pay attention, what is success is defined by the project team and not aam junta.

from an operational profile, the mission is a failure.
from a mission profile, the operation may be a success depending on the criteria.

I can define getting a bare minimum alliance political group votes is a success, but an opposition may want to prove that 2/3rd majority is the actual success.

failures could be just 10% of the problem., that does not mean 90% of the working system is a failure.

please understand this is not an user acceptance test.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 18 Mar 2013 02:54

Everything India tests is a success, see if only DRDo could fire a missile underground like BARC we could have inducted the weapon.

The fact that the car engine starts, the gearbox worked, the wheels spun, the steering is having drag to one side and going off road but the car is success lets try sell it customers is the story here.

It would be dignified if scientists and engineers simply said the subsystem x y z worked a b and c failed and we are investigating. It's too early to claim success at this time.

Or even better example is "Operation was success but patient died "

The best spin is "at this time the missile is success up to 200 km range as per Saik ji sar ji definitions and to respect MTR we only will make 200 km CM"

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 Mar 2013 02:59

DRDO simply needs to retest again . Hopefully in a ripple fire mode.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Mar 2013 05:12

pentaiah wrote:Or even better example is "Operation was success but patient died "

The best spin is "at this time the missile is success up to 200 km range as per Saik ji sar ji definitions and to respect MTR we only will make 200 km CM"

pentaiah ji saab ji, our patient here is patience.

MTR: You are making me go hungry now..

->lalbagh road, bangalore - Maveli Tiffin Room./OT

disha · Post by **disha** » 18 Mar 2013 05:25

pentaiah wrote:...
It would be dignified if scientists and engineers simply said the subsystem x y z worked a b and c failed and we are investigating. It's too early to claim success at this time.

Or even better example is "Operation was success but patient died "...

^^ Going subsystem level may give away design parameters not just for this system but for the rest of the missiles too.

Tomahawk had several embarrasing failures before it was inducted. In fact, some of Bill's tomahawks were mis-fired as well. That is they reached the wrong target. And their beneficiaries were China and the baki kutta was awarded with Barber for giving China the looks.

Anyway, it is a tercom missile and 2 out of 8/10 waypoints covered is indeed partial success. It will be at least 6 years or so with some 6-10 tests before it can be inducted. Till then please get used to failures and partial successes.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 Mar 2013 09:45

I don't believe it will take 6-10 years to induct the Nibhay. 3-6 successful tests should be enough to induct in small numbers and then simultaneously ramp up production along with upgrades.The sub launched would be the icing on the cake since it would turn all SSK's into deadly second strike platforms.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Mar 2013 11:38

what is so dignified in saying such a thing...i dont think its the right word to use it here...they said there was some problem and they will fix it...they are accepting there is issue, that is DIGNIFIED enough....

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 18 Mar 2013 12:17

Pentaiah Garu,

I would like to compare the failure to that of the first PSLV launch.. a software glitch here and there, an actuator problem, or some gyro/electro-optical device or electronic circuit malfunction..any one of these or other failures could have lead to the mission failure.

The missile flew for a few minutes - that means the aerodynamics, rocketry, flight dynamics works. Navigation may be a problem.. Correction may not be that difficult unlike a scenario where the basic design itself is flawed

member_24903 · Post by **member_24903** » 18 Mar 2013 18:11

Bheeshma wrote:DRDO simply needs to retest again . Hopefully in a ripple fire mode.

Hmmm.. The TEL has an accommodation of 3 Missiles.

subhamoy.das · Post by **subhamoy.das** » 18 Mar 2013 19:14

I am sure this was not the first launch other wise they would not have the confidence of having a chase aircraft and planning so many way points and planning for a full 1000km run. This was recent sagarika launch gone bad due to an ACCIDENT. That is why DRDO is so confident of calling it a success because they cannot say "wait a minute, we tested so many times and now it had to fail during customer demo..."

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 18 Mar 2013 19:18

most of the systems of nirbhay were tested & found good

the launch was good
conversion to cruise mode was good
health of missile was good for 20 mins
so there is only a possibility of technical glitch that can be rectified (may be some sw glitch ???)

the main thing is the missile was launched good , engine started , the fins were good & it was on its way.

so not a bad first launch for any cruise missile

srin · Post by **srin** » 18 Mar 2013 19:43

subhamoy.das wrote:I am sure this was not the first launch other wise they would not have the confidence of having a chase aircraft and planning so many way points and planning for a full 1000km run. This was recent sagarika launch gone bad due to an ACCIDENT. That is why DRDO is so confident of calling it a success because they cannot say "wait a minute, we tested so many times and now it had to fail during customer demo..."

This was a development trial, where they stretch the envelope and try to match the theory/simulation with the actual result. As long as there is learning from the telemetry and other data, you can't call it a failure. If the result is different from what is expected, you make the appropriate changes to the assumptions and re-test.

Now - a result such as this in an operational system can be called a failure, but for what is a clearly a system under development (doesn't matter if it was the first trial or tenth or whatever) is something to be expected. If there is no failure, it means that we aren't experimenting with new things enough.

DRDO is looking at the positives and calling it a partial success - because they validated the assumptions on many subsystems. As long as we get a fully working system, it doesn't matter what *we* call it.

There are a lot of things that can be criticized about DRDO, but this isn't one. What's going to happen is that more trials are going to be kept under wraps and where will we jingos be ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2013 20:49

Too many Gulf War pics of Tomahawks has made everyone an expert. So the DRDO is mentally being held to that standard and hence being flauted for claims of success or otherwise.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Mar 2013 01:17

Expect more Sudarshan trials in the 3rd and 4th week of April.

(Tender: Hiring of Civil Trucks for Transportation)

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 19 Mar 2013 02:26

SaiK wrote:Any strategy in choosing the cruise speed for nirbhay. why .8 mach and why not mach 1.2 or mach .6?

Engines!

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Mar 2013 02:59

Turbo fan engines are efficient at subsonic inlet speeds and what subsonic speed to choose depends on flow rate passing through the inlet no?

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 19 Mar 2013 10:40

venug wrote:Turbo fan engines are efficient at subsonic inlet speeds and what subsonic speed to choose depends on flow rate passing through the inlet no?

venug, a minor quibble here - the air-inlets will always ensure that a subsonic flow is "visible" to the Fan stages of a turbofan irrespective of the speed of the vehicle itself i.e. a turbojet/turbofan would be oblivious of the fact that the aircraft carrying it is flying at supersonic speed or transonic speed - to it, the airflow will be around 0.5-0.6M.

It's a different issue altogether that the further downstream LP and HP compressor blades may be made to rotate at enough speed to have the blade tip velocity around 1.2-1.6M etc (which generates intra-compressor-stage shock waves) which, thru very very very carerful design and ceefdee etc., can be advantageously used to increase SPR and thus the OPR as well.
Pls refer to the last couple of pages of the Kaveri thread for a glimpse on the blade tip velocity and SPR/OPR relationship etc.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Mar 2013 16:13

maltya ji, thank you, yes that makes sense, but a turbo fan engine decreasing say a supersonic inlet velocity to subsonic via inlet would do so through shocks leading to decease in efficiency as comapared to say a subsonic air inlet?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Mar 2013 21:48

venug wrote:maltya ji, thank you, yes that makes sense, but a turbo fan engine decreasing say a supersonic inlet velocity to subsonic via inlet would do so through shocks leading to decease in efficiency as comapared to say a subsonic air inlet?

Venug I am no expert but as far as I know there is a supersonic "cone" caused by the part of the aircraft that meets the airflow above Mach 1 and behind that cone the air is subsonic. So as a plane reaches supersonic speeds the intake has to have some mechanism to ensure that the intake is always behind the cone.

In the MiG 21 the conical radome moves forward so that the entire supersonic airflow cone moves forward and the actual area of the intake remains within the subsonic area. Some aircraft have mechanical splitter plates that move to do this job, but intakes of F-35 and cheeni J-20 have a nice "bump" that does the same job with no moving parts

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Mar 2013 22:16

chippanda club (thundaar waalas) claims they are the first to have a DSI jet fighter.

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Mar 2013 22:43

From Nirbhay size it seems that it would weight around 1400-1500 kg without booster and around 1800-1900kg with booster. My guess is that max range in ideal conditions would be around 2000km with 500kg warhead and effective range at low altitude and zig zag path would be around 1000km with similar sized warhead.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Mar 2013 23:05

vic wrote:From Nirbhay size it seems that it would weight around 1400-1500 kg without booster and around 1800-1900kg with booster.

How are you guys guessing the weight?
6/(length of Tomahawk) X (weight of Tomahawk)?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 20 Mar 2013 00:11

shiv garu, you are correct, in fact that didn't strike my mind at all. That works well for say supersonic jets as in your examples. But if one looks at Nirbhay, the cone itself is not designed for supersonic flow, so I think the inlet is designed only to remain in subsonic flow all the time.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Mar 2013 03:34

I wonder if we will know with certainty what engine Nirbhay uses. It has to be a desi development and the most likely inspiration (if it was that) is the Russian engine powering the Kh-55SM/101/102 cruise missiles with 2,000-3,000 km range. Chinese got around MTCR by reverse engineering the Kh-55 and Tomahawk engines and then gave it to pakis so its high time we had something better, which this is. It would be great if the next test has a target near Nicobar Islands and NOTAM is issued only a few hours prior.