Singha wrote:So we have our prithvi replacement as a conventional tactical precision strike missile
Yes, solid fuelled to boot with a longer range.
Singha wrote:So we have our prithvi replacement as a conventional tactical precision strike missile
nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.
Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.
One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.
prasannasimha wrote:MIRV and ballistic launch are triggers and signals fir a nuclear conflict.
These are subtle signals for shift feom conventional ro nuclear conflict so are not used.
There have been cluster type munirions used to pepper a runway .
Detection of a high tonnage ballistic missile launch all the more with MIRV will be thought of and treated as a nuclear first strike
prasannasimha wrote:MIRV and ballistic launch are triggers and signals fir a nuclear conflict.
These are subtle signals for shift feom conventional ro nuclear conflict so are not used.
There have been cluster type munirions used to pepper a runway .
Detection of a high tonnage ballistic missile launch all the more with MIRV will be thought of and treated as a nuclear first strike
nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.
Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.
One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.
Trikaal wrote:
I think it is because of the physical constraints. Laws of physics don't allow MIRV to be efficient for range<3000-4000 km. I remember this was the primary reason no one really believed Ababeel's MIRV claim at 2200 km since you can't target more than 2 locations at that low range.
Some more knowledgeable members can weigh in on this topic.
nam wrote:
A nuke MIRV requires to hit targets which are 10/100 km's apart. A conventional doesn't. All warhead in a conventional cluster are going towards the same place, expect they they need to target different point in the same .5 - 2km radius. So the release height will be much lower.
It is no different than a LGB release from a aircraft. So you are fundamentally replicating a LGB release, however each warhead having their own sensor+logic to hit a specific target.
I feel it is a more efficient use of a conventional BM, instead of wasting & building multiple BM. you need to build less number and overall cost is less.
nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.
Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.
One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.
Three TBMs proposed for air base attack were the conventional attack
missile (CAM-40) based on the Pershing missile with a 1,200-pound payload
of kinetic energy runway penetrators (KERP), the ballistic offensive suppression
system (BOSS) also known as AXE, based on the Trident with a
13,970-pound payload of conventional airfield defeat munitions (CADM),
and the total air base attack system (TABAS) with a 25-metric-ton
payload ...
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234977.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Assault-Breaker.html
Trikaal wrote:Ok, I understand what you are saying now. The idea is valid if the goal is to destroy a runway. But mostly missiles aren't used for that. We have LGBs and other dumb bombs for that. Conventional BMs are used to take down a fortified structure/asset where you want to maximize penetrating/destructive power. You get more power with a single larger warhead than multiple smaller ones.
tsarkar wrote:Pralay has been designed to use existing state of the art Prithvi warheads. Only the obsolete propulsion system is changed in the new missile. Plus advances in navigation, guidance and control systems added.
Prithvi had a large number of submunition warheads. Wish people referred to indigenous developments rather than go around all over the place.
Karan M wrote:Such heavy BMs pose both a logistical hassle, and also overlap into Nuke BM territory causing confusion and if the other side lacks sensors and goes hair trigger launch on warning, it can precipitate a crisis.
The Ministry of Defence has been in talks with Israel and the US for a long time to get the third generation anti-tank missiles. The ministry had ultimately zeroed in on the Spike missiles under an old deal, which is likely to cost around Rs 3,000 crore.
The government had also withdrawn an earlier tender for buying around 5,000 Spike missiles after finding the price of the deal too high.
An American missile system on offer was rejected too — after the terms and conditions of procuring it were not found to be compliant to the Indian defence procurement procedure guidelines.
Trikaal wrote:Nice! Congratulations to DRDO. Hope trials are completed on mission mode so that this Spike deal gets spiked once and for all.
On a side note, do we really need 75000 MPATGM? I was looking at Paki Armour numbers. Wikipedia puts their tanks around 5000 and armoured troop carriers around 3000. Even with a ratio of 5:1, 75000 seems a bit excessive. Maybe some more knowledgeable members can shed some light on Infantry tactics against armoured columns and what numbers are typically required?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest