Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3809
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby suryag » 24 Jan 2013 13:44

Merlin ji sorry but why would Dr.VKS lie ?

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby merlin » 24 Jan 2013 14:26

suryag wrote:Merlin ji sorry but why would Dr.VKS lie ?


Are you sure VKS actually said that or drove the team to reduce the weight so drastically? In other words I'm questioning the article.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jan 2013 14:33

its likely VKS attends high level program reviews of anything upcoming. and like Mahdi/CTO he must have hammered the team for going with such a heavy design for a MR-AAM and asked them to lose fat to look and feel more like a mica/amraam.

@300kg the possibility of dual pylons is remote while @ 175kg that possibility is very much there on table.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3809
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby suryag » 24 Jan 2013 14:52

Singhaji just read from wiki all missiles comparable performance(meteor, r77, aim-120) weigh-in in the 170-200kg category. Wondering how they got to 300 in the first place. There were also murmurs that during some tests the previous astra disintegrated due to structural failure

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10087
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sum » 24 Jan 2013 14:53

^^ So the captive flight videos slung under a Su-30 ( videos shown during alst AI) were for the older Astra and everything has to be redone now?

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby k prasad » 24 Jan 2013 16:13

abhik wrote: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.


1) There always will be enough and more use for an area bombardment weapon like unguided rockets (read Vivek's scenario). They have a shock value thats hard to match, and can suppress an entire swathe of land. When you have an infantry battalion dug in and set up camp across a certain area, and you want to neutralize it all, few better ways than sending 2 salvos of rockets. They dont even need to be too accurate. Thats the niche that rockets fill... read about the effect of Katyushas on German infantry soldiers in WW2.

2) GPS guidance on rockets isnt plug and play - the entire rocket will need to be changed and controls added to maneuver and correct the trajectory - its not cheap. At all. Far more expensive than an unguided munition - remember how much a single LGB kit costs? Compare that with the cost of the bomb itself.

3) I highly doubt we'll see the end of unguided munitions any time soon. It is likely that air dropped munitions might find some form of guidance, given that air missions are too expensive and critical to leave to the chance of an unguided bomb missing its target. However, the more likely scenario is that once initial precision attacks are complete and air is sanitised, missions might revert to dumb bombs to attack larger targets. Most LICs these days dont require as much earth moving to get to the point of having a large number of dumb bombs being deployed after the initial LGB runs.

Even more so when it comes to rockets, whose value is in area suppression rather than pinpoint attacks. In these cases, volume of fire becomes more important in achieving mission objectives than accuracy. There really is no other way to neutralize a large enemy infantry HQ or dispersed Anti-Air battery than to destroy it across the large area it occupies. GPS Guided MLRS are certainly a way to augment and slightly improve the accuracy to help attack entrenched targets, but they still won't be as accurate, as devastating, as long range (or as expensive) as a missile for attacking a high value group of entrenched targets.

Its like the anti-runway munitions vs ASM for anti-carrier operations discussion thats simultaneously happening here. Each of these have their uses. But it helps to have more arrows in your quiver when the cost of having an extra type isnt that big.


abhik wrote:
k prasad wrote: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.


You're right, and in this sense, I agree with vivek_ahuja about the burgeoning inventory of missile types being a problem. We need to find some commonality, which I guess we will achieve very soon, given the kind of sophistication and confidence we're seeing in our missile technology.

That said, its not a question of distance per se, but a question of battlefield considerations and threat perceptions - what kind of systems will we see deployed on the battlefield, and how best to neutralize them. Also, as distance increases, systems go from being tactical to theatre-based to strategic.

Because these systems will have to be deployed some distance behind the frontlines, either to protect from direct attacks by infantry, or to reduce risk of attack by similar systems from the other side, their effective range drops. The closer one gets to the frontlines, the more the number of systems you can get hit with. Why risk destroying a precious 155 mm arty gun by placing it 3 km from the frontlines, within the range of mortars, Arty and sneak infantry attacks. Move it say 10 km away and you drop the risk, at the cost of some effective range. Its a gamble really.

Lets look at possible enemy systems and typical deployment/Engagement ranges from the frontlines. The actual effective engagement depth would typically be half to 2/3rds of the numbers i'm quoting. Vivek_Ahuja saar, these are my estimates... please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Small unit level engagement: Infantry Weapons
Offensive:
Rifles & RPGs - 200 m - 2 km
Anti Tank Missiles - 2 - 4 km
81-120 mm Mortars - 2 - 7 km

Defensive:
MANPADS - 2-4 km

Surveillance:
BFSRs

Sub-sector level engagement - Typically Artillery & Helos

Offensive:
Low Cal Howitzers - 20 km
155 mm Artillery - 20 - 40 km
MLRS Rockets - 20 - 40 km
Helicopter Gunships - 10 - 40 km (FARPs are usually >10-20 km from frontlines. No one wants to lose a helo deep in enemy territory)
ER MLRS Rockets - 50 - 90 km

Defensive:
AAA - 5 - 10 km
SAMs - 10-30 km

Surveillance:
Short Range Radars (Bharni, Ashlesha) - 30-50 km
UAVs - 20-40 km


Theatre Level engagement: - Tactical Missiles, C3I nodes, logistical nodes,
These are the more precious systems, so deployment will generally be fairly far from frontlines... 20-30 km typically. More in case of air-fields and air force bases (unless they're ALGs).

Offensive:
CAS & Deep Strike Aircraft - 50 - 500 km
Tactical missiles (CM or BM) - 50 - 150 km
Longer Range Conventional missiles - 150-300 km

Defensive:
LR SAMs - 50-100 km
CAP Aircraft - 50 - 500 km

Surveillance
LR Radars - 100-300 km
AWACS,
JSTOR,

Beyond this, we head into strategic ranges, where we require a few types of Ballistic and Cruise missiles of ranges from 700 - 7000 km. But the actual effect of these systems will be largely strategic rather than tactical, so we'll keep those out of the discussion for now. What is important to note is that we certainly wont need a new missile for every 100 km at these ranges, since the effect and deployment is about the same.

... Now, as you can see, the moment we try and attack one system with a similar system (say Arty vs Arty), both are essentially within range of each other, and can be attacked. Its essential to not only be able to look first-shoot first, but more importantly, to be able to shoot from beyond the other guy's engagement range. Which is why there was a focus on Asymmetric systems (like ER MLRS) to make up for that. Combat favours an attack by an asymmetric system to reduce risk.

So now, how to attack the ER-MLRS, or logistical or C3I nodes? You need a much longer range system, which is fairly destructive and quite accurate, but also not going to be too high risk or high cost - That means attacking an MLRS with a Prithvi missile is both escalatory and unsustainably expensive.

Secondly, the flexibility of deployment. Given that the frontlines and terrain, to retain tactical surprise & flexibility, we need to be capable of attacking the same point from different areas, so as to not allow the enemy a chance to deny the few deployment points we have. Think of it as a point that needs to be attacked.

The diagram below might help illustrate the point.

Image
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7OJK8DZ_uVjMW13dENNR3ZEczg/edit

As you can see, even a small increase in range helps improve the deployment region manifold, making the use of such a system far more powerful. In the image, this shows the region to attack only one point in the enemy territory. A larger such region, combined with longer range also means that far more of the enemy's territory is now in our range of attack. And with a larger deployment region, it becomes far harder for the enemy to counterattack. Imagine if we had to attack using only Pinakas from that small region, and the enemy had counter battery radars. It'd be very dangerous indeed.

A longer range system helps here in increasing deployment flexibility manifold. Not to mention, allowing the same system to support a much wider swathe of territory. Range helps.

Assume we don't have the Tactical missiles like Prahaar. If you look at the systems above, you see that Smerch systems can at most attack about 50-60 km behind enemy lines. Which means that if we want to attack their FARPs, Command nodes and SAMs, we need to do so with Deep strike air attacks, which are risky and costly if losses occur, or with Prithvis, Brahmos and other tactical missiles. Prithvis would be escalatory, Brahmos are more precious for other uses than to waste a million dollar missile on this target. Both are too expensive and too few to waste, and arent as easy to deploy.

At the moment, we have nothing in between the Smerch & the Prithvis, but we definitely need one. Prahaar fills this niche, as ATACMS did for the US Army.

Obviously, it needs to be easily integrated into the ORBAT, cheap to procure, store and deploy, accurate and highly mobile to be successful. That is where a system like ATACMS or LORA succeeds. In this case, I think we have the accuracy covered. Cost should also be lower than a larger, more complex system like Prithvi or Brahmos. We need to work out on the deployment and mobility aspects. In this case, I hope we could come up with a more modular missile that could be deployed with the Pinakas. But even if its separate, it won't be too bad.

I hope that helps.

Vivek-ji, correct me if i'm wrong anywhere on this.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby AbhiJ » 24 Jan 2013 22:13

What is the engine in Nirbhay?

Laghu Shakti or NPO Saturn?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby abhik » 24 Jan 2013 22:21

Prem Kumar wrote: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.

I'm not suggesting that current stockpile is going to be converted, but that future production will focus increasingly at PG rockets.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby abhik » 24 Jan 2013 23:04

k prasad wrote:1) There always will be enough and more use for an area bombardment weapon like unguided rockets (read Vivek's scenario). They have a shock value thats hard to match, and can suppress an entire swathe of land. When you have an infantry battalion dug in and set up camp across a certain area, and you want to neutralize it all, few better ways than sending 2 salvos of rockets. They dont even need to be too accurate. Thats the niche that rockets fill... read about the effect of Katyushas on German infantry soldiers in WW2.

Adding precision guidance to a munition does not preclude it from being used in an "area bombardment" role. One may simply target them in a grid pattern which might be more efficient.
2) GPS guidance on rockets isnt plug and play - the entire rocket will need to be changed and controls added to maneuver and correct the trajectory - its not cheap. At all. Far more expensive than an unguided munition - remember how much a single LGB kit costs? Compare that with the cost of the bomb itself.

As with any technology the prices of precision guided munitions(at least the non exotic ones) has been falling. Paveway and JDAM prices have fallen to around 30k and 20k USD. At these rates they have crossed the threshold where using dumb-bombs doesn't make military-economic sense. Which is why you rarely see western aircraft carrying dumb-bombs in recent conflicts.
Rockets like the Smerch, unguided they may be still cost over $ 100K. Now consider that there are quite a few companies working on GPS guidance kits in the form of fuses for 155mm artillery shells. The advertised rate of these products is around $ 1K. I don't imagine that adding a GPS guidance kit to a rocket would add much more than say $ 10k or less than 10% to the cost. But the return on that marginally increased investment will be huge.
That said, its not a question of distance per se, but a question of battlefield considerations and threat perceptions - what kind of systems will we see deployed on the battlefield, and how best to neutralize them. Also, as distance increases, systems go from being tactical to theatre-based to strategic.

Because these systems will have to be deployed some distance behind the frontlines, either to protect from direct attacks by infantry, or to reduce risk of attack by similar systems from the other side, their effective range drops. The closer one gets to the frontlines, the more the number of systems you can get hit with. Why risk destroying a precious 155 mm arty gun by placing it 3 km from the frontlines, within the range of mortars, Arty and sneak infantry attacks. Move it say 10 km away and you drop the risk, at the cost of some effective range. Its a gamble really. ...

Well a greater range is always better but it will also mean a larger weapon. For any given weapon one has to stop at a certain point else you'll end up targeting a paki bunker across the border with a sub launched ICBM from the Atlantic instead of using a mamuli anti-material rifle.
...
At the moment, we have nothing in between the Smerch & the Prithvis, but we definitely need one. Prahaar fills this niche, as ATACMS did for the US Army.

I am very much against filling of niches :evil: .

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby k prasad » 25 Jan 2013 01:18

Abhik wrote:Adding precision guidance to a munition does not preclude it from being used in an "area bombardment" role. One may simply target them in a grid pattern which might be more efficient.


Yes, except my point being that for an area bombardment, we don't need accuracy. Thus, for the same result, we dont need a more expensive guided rocket.

As with any technology the prices of precision guided munitions(at least the non exotic ones) has been falling. Paveway and JDAM prices have fallen to around 30k and 20k USD. At these rates they have crossed the threshold where using dumb-bombs doesn't make military-economic sense. Which is why you rarely see western aircraft carrying dumb-bombs in recent conflicts.


Guidance isnt just about the GPS or laser seeker kits alone. Maneuvering to that point will require control surfaces, control systems, etc etc. Which makes it quite expensive. Even more expensive than dumb bombs.

I have already explained the reasoning for why we wont see aircrafts carrying dumb bombs as much in todays LICs or initial stages of large scale combat - it has less to do with how cheap they are, than with how expensive it would be to miss the target given the cost and risk of fighter missions in such far off areas.

Rockets like the Smerch, unguided they may be still cost over $ 100K. Now consider that there are quite a few companies working on GPS guidance kits in the form of fuses for 155mm artillery shells. The advertised rate of these products is around $ 1K. I don't imagine that adding a GPS guidance kit to a rocket would add much more than say $ 10k or less than 10% to the cost.


With all due respect, could you please explain how a fuse can help guide a shell to a certain point? At best, it could help explode the shell in the air closer to the target based on GPS data. Which is pretty useless for hardened targets. To actually guide it, you need all the control planes and whistles I mentioned above. None of which are cheap.

Moreover, I think you are overestimating the ability of manufacturers to make it cost low. Hell, even a 155 mm excalibur guided shell costs 55000 USD. And a 120 mm guided mortar shell costs 7000 USD.

But the return on that marginally increased investment will be huge.


Coming to RoI, we're essentially not disputing the utility of GPS guided rockets here, but rather, we're debating the utility of the Prahaar missile. So lets get back to the crux of the matter. You contend that GPS guided shells and rockets would make prahaar redundant, and that Prahaar is a competitor to the Smerch.

I'm not against ER Smerch, GPS guided MLRS, and any other system available. Indeed, for normal 50-60 km range attacks, it would suffice.

However, you have ignored my points about high firepower, accuracy, need to attack hardened targets, and most of all, the advantages that extra range confer, which make the Prahaar necessary. I have dealt with these in some detail above. Especially against hardened targets, it helps to have an extraa weapon in the quiver. In that sense, the Smerch, GPS guided or not, will not be able to help at all.

I am very much against filling of niches.


Thank god then that DRDO and the IA don't have to worry about the opinions of armchair thinkers like us then eh? :-P DRDO finds a need for it. The Army too. Hence they developed it. Till now, we havent seen any missiles being developed on a whim, have we. The effectiveness of ATACMS was pretty well demonstrated during Desert Storm.

It'd be great if you could provide a more logical reasoning for why the Prahaar isnt a system you like, or why it is operationally comparable to a Smerch.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 25 Jan 2013 03:13


This article from the Frontline has been posted by couple of poster before... there are many Gems in this which (IHMO) need to be captured...
1) Scramjet testing seems to be at an advanced stage... they are thinking big here “this technology will give us a global reach in targeting places and striking them because of its speed”.
2) HSTDV the missile which will use the Scamjet is also moving forward..."HSTDV team gung-ho about the vehicle’s flight is that its aerodynamic configuration design has been completed. The development tests with the scramjet engine have also been done. The flight trial will be done in vehicle configuration."
3) This is old news " the Indian Air Force and the Army have placed orders for Akash for Rs.25,000 crore.", the new news, DRDO has spent only 500 crores on Akash... this is a phenomenal ROI.
4) This is new "Akash will be useful to protect India’s coastline", Akash was never described as a coastal defence weapon.. it would be great if we can deploy Akash as an area defence weapon (mobile as well as stationary) around sensitive areas as well as vulnerable points. An order by Navy and subsequent variants being developed would not hurt Desh.
5) A Liquid fuelled engine for Akash "“Akash, with a solid ramjet engine, is under production. We are developing liquid ramjet technology so that missiles in future will be based on it,”" - What is the benefit?
6) LRSAM and MRSAM are also progressing.
7) Nag trials seem to have come to "Final acceptance stage".. hope it gets inducted soon in 1000s.

Jai Hind

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 Jan 2013 04:22

Akash is probably being developed as India's equiv. to the US's SM-3 Std. missiles,which have an ABM capability.A faster,longer range missile could help protect key coastal installations and civilian centres,part of a layered missile defence which has to deal with BMs and cruise missiles,the latter which could be fired from subs.It is no great secret that Pak is developing with the Chinese,their sub strategic deterrent using Chinese AIP subs,as the nuclear sub route is too expensive and complex for them to use,AIP subs ideal as India is their only enemy.still exists.

The saturation capability by MBRLs is why their popularity exists .Even in recent low-level conflicts as in Lanka,where the Lankan army at times was saved by their MBRLs,they have proven themselves.However,as the range requirement goes up,with rockets reaching ranges formerly in the missile regime,the cost and accuracy factor has to be studied carefully.For eliminating specific nodes and key enemy installations,command centres,etc.,there is nothing better than an accurate missile.With the development and future arrival of our sub-sonic cruise missiles ,we will have a wider inventory of missiles,MBRLs and artillery to choose from in future conflicts.The possibility of ERGMs for the artillery must not be neglected,as there is great promise here.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2013 08:45

I am also curious to know why the matra super 530D weighed in at 275kg when its specs and range do not look anything greater than mica/amraam.

did better energy propellant make such a large size redundant?

AIM7 Sparrow was 230kg

one clear diff is the size of warhead. Mica/amraam have 12-18kg while 530D had 31kg and Sparrow had a huge 40kg warhead. so accuracy of target tracking and better fuses have made it possible to reduce warhead size by >50%.

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 25 Jan 2013 09:34

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


Significant differences in aerodynamic configuration. see the poster and the model. Seems like a redesigned nose and fin arrangement. which is newer? the model or the poster?

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby symontk » 25 Jan 2013 09:46

A Liquid fuelled engine for Akash "“Akash, with a solid ramjet engine, is under production. We are developing liquid ramjet technology so that missiles in future will be based on it,”" - What is the benefit?


Solid engines will be able to take to air faster, but the final engagement speeds will be less, but liquid engines give sustained speed at the start and it will give greater final engagement speeds. Also the liquid engines are better in a missle avoidance / counter measure scenario created by the aggressor

Liquid engine should also give a better range too

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12330
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Jan 2013 09:54

Singha -> I think you answered the question in warhead weight, better explosive chemicals, faster, better computer processes and software in sensors, leading to lighter sensors, lighter warheads and lighter missiles.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 25 Jan 2013 10:01

k prasad wrote:Thank god then that DRDO and the IA don't have to worry about the opinions of armchair thinkers like us then eh? DRDO finds a need for it. The Army too. Hence they developed it. Till now, we havent seen any missiles being developed on a whim, have we. The effectiveness of ATACMS was pretty well demonstrated during Desert Storm.


Sorry saar - concur on everything but one - last we heard, Army hasn't shown interest in it. So DRDO had stopped.

Unfortunate, because I can visualize Cold Start comprising of launching of dozens of Brahmoses for high-value targets and hundreds of Prahaars hitting airports and supply depots at Skardu and Gilgit ...

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2013 10:05

I feel the new astra is like the model, has lost its huge midbody fins and general clone of 530d look.

the photo of astra test floating around in various crop sizes and even mirror rotated is different versions of a single photo which might be of the old model in 2011
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-haeIz3PWWEg/T ... sile_1.jpg

apart from better solid fuel , smaller warhead, lighter sensor and electronics, lighter 787 aerospace certified Li-Ion battery from Yuasa corp :twisted: , the airframe might be nearly fully composite now...

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby k prasad » 25 Jan 2013 13:33

srin wrote:Sorry saar - concur on everything but one - last we heard, Army hasn't shown interest in it. So DRDO had stopped.

Unfortunate, because I can visualize Cold Start comprising of launching of dozens of Brahmoses for high-value targets and hundreds of Prahaars hitting airports and supply depots at Skardu and Gilgit ...


Haha. Well, you might be right Srin. Lets hope the Army finds it a useful missile to induct. OTOH, We might need to look into the cost and accuracy of a similarly equipped Cruise missile. When it comes to Smerch vs Prahaar, I'm fairly decided on the need for a Prahaar. But if it was Prahaar vs 150 km cruise missile, then the decision becomes tougher.

http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part05.htm is a very interesting analysis of A/C vs BM vs CM.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vina » 25 Jan 2013 14:12

A Liquid fuelled engine for Akash "“Akash, with a solid ramjet engine, is under production. We are developing liquid ramjet technology so that missiles in future will be based on it,”" - What is the benefit?

A liquid fueled rocket can be throttled efficiently and restarted if need be. Solid fuel is you light it and then off it goes.

In plain Inglees, longer range via more efficient use of stored energy in propellant and ability to have enough reserves for high energy end game maneuvers.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12330
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Jan 2013 14:22

And over the years, liquid fuel composition has changed and they have become storage today as compared to earlier generation fuels which were corrosive and the missile needed to fueled just prior to launch

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vina » 25 Jan 2013 14:52

Aditya_V wrote:And over the years, liquid fuel composition has changed and they have become storage today as compared to earlier generation fuels which were corrosive and the missile needed to fueled just prior to launch


Ah. Poor me was thinking that Munennai/Seema Ennai/ Krishnayil (in Madras Tamil) or in plain Inglees , Kerosene, is atleast as old as my great great grandfather and Rockefeller and Standard Oil and all that and that you can safely leave it in a tin and take it from Arctic to Antartic, going via the Sahara enroute without any problems.

Must be some fundamentally new fangled Kerosene if liquid fueled ram jets like Brahmos use it! Ah, you can rename the old Krishnayil as RP-1 or some new fangled name sir jee.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12330
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Jan 2013 14:58

Ok but early generation V-1 and Trident missile liquid fuels were corrosive.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 25 Jan 2013 16:18

Aditya_V ji, if I am not mistaken the Hydrazine and Oxoacid combinations are the only ones that caused the problems of corrosion and toxicity. Both these are old tech.

And the Kerosene (Rocketry)/UDMH (missiles) are alternatives to Hydrazine and LOX is alternatives to Oxoacids. All these alternatives are also old tech.

I dont know why the Nitric Acid or Red fuming nitric acid was used when LOX was available but I could not find any new technology in liquid fuels. The alternatives were there almost for ever. Probably cost was a consideration or probably other material handling issues.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12330
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Jan 2013 16:23

Don't know but even our first gen Prithvi's had to fueled in the field prior to launch.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 25 Jan 2013 16:26

Yes they had to and Pritivi used UDMH from day one.

Some other reason perhaps.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby dinesha » 25 Jan 2013 16:28

India to launch sub-sonic missile Nirbhay next month:VKS
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 344332.ece

India would flight test sub-sonic, medium range cruise missile Nirbhay, next month, a key defence official said on Friday.

Nirbhay is being developed by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a Defence Research and Development Organisation lab based here, V K Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, told a press conference here.

“This is in the final stage of integration and we expect to launch it next month”, Mr. Saraswat, also Secretary in the Department of Defence (R&D) and DRDO Director General, said.

He said Nirbhay has good loitering capability, good control and guidance, high degree of accuracy in terms of impact and very good stealth features.


ADE Director P S Krishnan said Nirbhay would be launched from Integrated Test Range at Chandipur in Orissa.

Keywords: DRDO, Indian space programme, sub-sonic launch

nash
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nash » 25 Jan 2013 16:48

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-takes- ... 709-3.html

Meanwhile, Saraswat also said that the DRDO has conducted a flight of "guided bomb". "It's a bomb which can fly for about 40-50 or even more kilometres in a guided mode and it can be released from an aircraft," he said

He said the guided bomb is a totally indigenous effort, from designing, development and realisation including explosive content in them, as also guidance and control.


Is he talking about Sudarshan LGB or is it some thing new, on the line of JDAM(GPS or GLONAS guided) ???

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vina » 25 Jan 2013 17:04

Meanwhile, Saraswat also said that the DRDO has conducted a flight of "guided bomb". "It's a bomb which can fly for about 40-50 or even more kilometres in a guided mode and it can be released from an aircraft," he said

He said the guided bomb is a totally indigenous effort, from designing, development and realisation including explosive content in them, as also guidance and control.


Hallelujah! Ya Allah!. Har Har Mahadev, Jai Mata Di, Sat Sri Akal !

A desi AASM! With 50Km+ range and precision strike, this is exactly the sort of stuff we need to order for a billion dollars and stock up.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 25 Jan 2013 17:11

Aditya_V wrote:Don't know but even our first gen Prithvi's had to fueled in the field prior to launch.


Ok now this could be the answer.


The Prithvi used UDMH (stable). but the problems seems like was because of Oxyacid route to oxidation. Seems like we use Nitrogen Tetroxide a lot for our rocketry and missiles. During production and usage NTO needs to be cooled to a liquid form and then during the production process Nitric Acid is also produced which is also an oxidizer and is also used in PUREX. :rotfl:

Good thing they messed around with the fuel instead of the oxidizer.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nash » 25 Jan 2013 17:12

1.Sudarshan-(LGB)
2.40-50 wala - (guided)
3.ARM-(may be variant of prahaar, it can also be used as a A2G or anti-ship)
4.CM-(nirbhay)
5.Astra-MkI\II
6. and if Astra MkI come with IIR seeker with minimum range of less than 500m, then can be used as WVR.

whole indigenious weapon package is getting ready for Tejas and other.

Only thing left is to identify some decent manufacturing partner and produce them in good numbers.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2013 19:42

imo the indian guided bomb is likely to be a dorsal bolt on folding wing kit and guided by glonass signal & ins because 40-50km is too far away for laser guidance.

note that AASM feature as a rocket booster in the rear (adding to cost) while the american wing kits do not. the booster might permit a better range for low level release.

ours will be more like JDAM-ER
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/04 ... ound-jdam/

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 25 Jan 2013 20:02

Singha khush hua!

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby arun » 25 Jan 2013 20:12

ravi_g wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Don't know but even our first gen Prithvi's had to fueled in the field prior to launch.


Ok now this could be the answer.


The Prithvi used UDMH (stable). but the problems seems like was because of Oxyacid route to oxidation. Seems like we use Nitrogen Tetroxide a lot for our rocketry and missiles. During production and usage NTO needs to be cooled to a liquid form and then during the production process Nitric Acid is also produced which is also an oxidizer and is also used in PUREX. :rotfl:

Good thing they messed around with the fuel instead of the oxidizer.


From what I can make out the liquid propellant used by the Prithvi is not UDMH.

The Hypergolic fuel aka “G Fuel” used is Isomeric Xylidine (50%) plus Triethylamine (50%).

The Oxidiser aka “O Fuel” used is Red Fuming Nitic Acid (RFNA) with Phosphoric Acid (H3PO4) and Hydrofluoric acid (HF) added as corrosion inhibitors.

See this link from the OFB:

Clicky

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 25 Jan 2013 22:42

Ravi_G: the kerosene preference is likely with a rider - with ramjet/scramjet only. Then you are only worried about carrying the liquid fuel but not the oxidizer. And kerosene being stable & non-corrosive makes it a good choice.

Vina: agree with the advantages you listed for liquid fuels. But they also come with penalties like a larger volume requirement for the same thrust. As with all engineering, I guess its a trade-off

It looks like DRDO is settling down on 2 designs for their tactical missiles: the kerosene-scramjet class of missiles (Brahmos, Aakash's future variants) & the dual-pulse solid fuel class of missiles (AAD, LRSAM, Astra)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2013 01:57

vina wrote:
Meanwhile, Saraswat also said that the DRDO has conducted a flight of "guided bomb". "It's a bomb which can fly for about 40-50 or even more kilometres in a guided mode and it can be released from an aircraft," he said

He said the guided bomb is a totally indigenous effort, from designing, development and realisation including explosive content in them, as also guidance and control.


Hallelujah! Ya Allah!. Har Har Mahadev, Jai Mata Di, Sat Sri Akal !

A desi AASM! With 50Km+ range and precision strike, this is exactly the sort of stuff we need to order for a billion dollars and stock up.

Can this be extended to 100 km range. May be the release point needs to be 50k ft or more.
This is the best answer to all the border problems.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Jan 2013 02:33

I am reading it as "glide range", so it all depends on the launch platform capability to reach the extended ranges (before launch).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Jan 2013 02:38


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 26 Jan 2013 02:49

A bomb wing kit with 50km range puts the aircraft out of most localized air defence and adding a rocket booster to further this range shouldn't be too time consuming, and a near simultaneous release against closely spaced targets would preserve the surprise element when applied as a solution to border problems

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Indranil » 26 Jan 2013 03:31

This is very interesting. Will have to keep an eye out for this. There are many ways in which Sudarshan is being modified.
1. Extension of range for gliding profile with GPS/INS for designating target.
2. Further extension of range and ability to hit moving targets by attaching rockets (aka AASM)


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests