Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby souravB » 03 Nov 2018 18:42

nam wrote:Another aspect of such LRSAM is it's tracking by S(or may be C) band. When your jet is been tracked by a S band radar at long distance, you may think there isn't a SAM/BVR coming at you. For BVR it will be a X band.

In case of S400, there will be a SAM even at S band. Since lot of IAF ground based radars will be S band.. you wouldn't know which one will be shooting out a SAM !

I am a bit confused. Are you saying that the missile targeting and guidance radar of S400 is of S band? If that is the case then it is a true TFTA solution as S band with its larger frequency is very difficult to lock on to targets AFAIK.
even stealth fighters are made effective against X or Ku band right now. If this is the case then it will be effective against all the current stealth fighters too if I am not mistaken.
or am I missing something?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 03 Nov 2018 18:57

souravB wrote:I am a bit confused. Are you saying that the missile targeting and guidance radar of S400 is of S band? If that is the case then it is a true TFTA solution as S band with its larger frequency is very difficult to lock on to targets AFAIK.
even stealth fighters are made effective against X or Ku band right now. If this is the case then it will be effective against all the current stealth fighters too if I am not mistaken.
or am I missing something?


It seems to be S band, probably at higher frequency. Targeting radars are always at higher frequency. Ship based radars like MFSTAR are S band. It can search and track. Search radars are lower frequency. L & probably lower S band frequency.

A land based X band radar at those ranges will need tremendous power source. So S band is used to give it the range required, coupled with Ku band seeker on the SAM to hit the target.

Stealth are made effective against all the usual radar frequency. L, S, C, X, may be Ka/Ku. Higher the frequency, more the power required, better the detection.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2018 19:17

nam wrote:[

It seems to be S band, probably at higher frequency.


The S400 uses a 8-12GHz PESA (92N6) as its target engagement radar and a 4-8 GHz Acquisition radar (96L6) for Surveillance and acquisition. In addition, when multiple units are involved there is usually a 2-4 GHz Battle Management radar as well (91N6).
Last edited by brar_w on 03 Nov 2018 19:46, edited 2 times in total.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 03 Nov 2018 19:27

brar_w wrote:
nam wrote:[

It seems to be S band, probably at higher frequency.


The S400 uses a 8-12GHz PESA (92N6) as its target engagement radar and a 4-8 GHz Acquisition radar (96L6) for Surveillance and acquisition. In addition, when multiple units are involved there is usually a 2-4 GHz Battle Management radar as well (91N6).


Ok, so it is X band for target & C for acquisition. I wonder about the power requirement for a 300km X band targeting, in a mobile system. May be it is less compared to AESA, because it is PESA?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 03 Nov 2018 19:30

S-400 guidance system is much more complex thing than the often thought MFCR providing targetting and Survellence and Acquisation providing long range tracking , That is a very basic system how this operates if looked in isolation as TEL and Radar

In real world the guidance system can be many things our there including AWACS , L/S band radar , Meter band and even triangulated by passive system , The guidance can also be forwarded to other systems that is closer to the target and all this happens automatically and seamlessly, These are tested in many exercises but are not well documented for good reason. 40N6 has both passive and active guidance system in its radar which provides better ECM resistance.

Nebo-M meter radar system is integrated with other L/S/X band system ..... Nebo-M system when sensor fused with other RF data provides a good capability against broad range of target.

When integrated with Indian IADS under work and with modern systems like Swordfish/GP/Barak-LR AESA radar plus the other things under works this should prove tough nut to crack for any adversary

Shortly we would see some stuff on Nebo

https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/44 ... r-complex/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2018 19:48

nam wrote:Ok, so it is X band for target & C for acquisition. I wonder about the power requirement for a 300km X band targeting, in a mobile system. May be it is less compared to AESA, because it is PESA?


X and C bands are very well suited for engagement radars. Power requirements though heavy would be manageable as both Russia and the US has been fielding high frequency radars for this work for some time and the S400 to that end takes the S300 technology forward (92N6 is an upgrade/re-design of the Tombstone PESA) so there was plenty of time to solve that side of things. It is the norm rather than the exception with high end SAM systems.


nam wrote:A land based X band radar at those ranges will need tremendous power source. So S band is used to give it the range required, coupled with Ku band seeker on the SAM to hit the target.


When you are developing a highly capable AMD system, you are usually trading one thing for the other. Higher frequencies is where you want to be on the engagement side for many reasons and this is where the legacy systems also existed so it is only logical that modernized systems also perform in that frequency range. Power requirements relative to more efficient lower frequency sensors would be higher, but they won't be unrealistic or a big ask and in return you also get much better performance.

Primary reason that some of the AD systems use single lower frequency sensor is to cater to a particular cost target (both O&S cost and procurement cost) because S band is very good if you want to balance surveillance needs with Engagement needs and do not want to field multiple sensors.

On Seekers and interceptors:

I could be wrong, but most of the SAMs currently operational with the S300 and S-400 domestic/export systems currently require SAGG with the exception of the 5V55K and 5V55KD which require command guidance. The most widely seen export missile on the S400 will likely be the 48N6E3 which employs a semi-active seeker.

Earlier this month Aviation Week and other outlets reported that the Russian forces had accepted the 40N6 long range SAM which fields an active seeker but there is no confirmation of the missile having been exported to either of the recent S-400 export customers or being part of negotiations even before it entered Russian service.

I am also unaware of what the export designation is for the 40N6 or whether an export variant even exists given it was apparently accepted by the Russian forces just a few weeks ago.

In real world the guidance system can be many things our there including AWACS , L/S band radar , Meter band and even triangulated by passive system


Guidance as usually used refers to SAM guidance or missile communication in a SAGG system. Yes, Air Defenses are linked to all major military surveillance networks such as ground, air and space and so will S400 and other Air-Defense systems as they have been for years. An AWACS is not going to guide a SAM to its target but will provide the SA to the air defender on the ground. When more Active Seeker SAM systems proliferate then it becomes practical and cost-effective to invest in Fire-Control level interoperability between air-sea or land based disparate systems and then you can begin developing systems like that. The USN does that with its NIFC-CA and the US Army is doing this with its IBCS which goes beyond data sharing and a common operating picture with tactical data links and air-defense networks provide already.

Nebo-M meter radar system is integrated with other L/S/X band system ..... Nebo-M system when sensor fused with other RF data provides a good capability against broad range of target.


Do you know what the export systems in the NEBO family are called/designated?

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Snehashis » 04 Nov 2018 03:57

Great discussion on Astra.


thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby thammu » 04 Nov 2018 12:37

Great discussion on Astra.


+++1

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2018 15:02

Good civil discussion. But when they seems to have decent idea on what outsiders at doing, like Meteor, no one mentioned SFDR. And we still lack CCM.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 04 Nov 2018 15:19

We seem to be going for ASRAAM, even on SU30. At first it was reported for LCA. So CCM by drdo seem to be remote.

Personally I prefer DRDO work on a laser pod instead of CCM.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2018 11:26

Why?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 05 Nov 2018 14:46

Indranil wrote:Why?


You mean the laser pod?

CCM is not a tech which we cannot build ourself. We have BVR, it might take some effort however it is doable. Moreover it is not a tech, which is under denial regime and difficult to get.

On the other hand laser tech is quite new and one which can give us the edge. A laser pod defence against CCM & BVR will be a capability much superior than trying the luck with ECM. US is moving towards it.

There is no point spending effort on CCM to play catch up, when we take a leap with laser tech.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Cybaru » 05 Nov 2018 14:52

Why can't we do both? Is there a resource constraint and we have to choose? They are different specialties. The laser guy can't work on CCM and vice versa.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 05 Nov 2018 15:18

Cybaru wrote:Why can't we do both? Is there a resource constraint and we have to choose? They are different specialties. The laser guy can't work on CCM and vice versa.


DRDO's budget is 2-2.5 billion per year. We have to pick and choose. And invest in areas, which gives an edge currently and in future.

It has nothing to do with areas of specialty.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby abhik » 05 Nov 2018 19:06

CCM might be a good candidate for Make (?) program with private companies/DPSUs developing/building the missile with DRDO handholding, like ATAGS.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2018 21:57

nam wrote:
Indranil wrote:Why?


You mean the laser pod?

CCM is not a tech which we cannot build ourself. We have BVR, it might take some effort however it is doable. Moreover it is not a tech, which is under denial regime and difficult to get.

On the other hand laser tech is quite new and one which can give us the edge. A laser pod defence against CCM & BVR will be a capability much superior than trying the luck with ECM. US is moving towards it.

There is no point spending effort on CCM to play catch up, when we take a leap with laser tech.

I am now a little confused with what you are speaking of. Are you speaking of a speaking of using an LDP for AA roles (like IAF/IN is doing with Litening)? Or are you speaking you of laser as a directed weapon?

If you are speaking of the first, you should follow some of the work from IDRE. If you are speaking of the second, I am not aware of these developments. But lasers as directed weapons are far from being a podded solution.

CCMs, on the other hand, are one of the most used weapons.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 05 Nov 2018 22:02

Indranil wrote:I am now a little confused with what you are speaking of. Are you speaking of a speaking of using an LDP for AA roles (like IAF/IN is doing with Litening)? Or are you speaking you of laser as a directed weapon?



I should have been more specific. I was referring to Direct energy weapon. Some of the US solutions were shown as pods. Hence I mentioned pods.

Not referring to LDP.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 06 Nov 2018 04:32

I don't know enough about those weapons. So, I will humbly bow out of this discussion.


Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Kakarat » 10 Nov 2018 20:17



Yes yes Dhanush is very secret, It is so secret that it is used as ABM targets

May be Dhanush is the new Prithvi

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1124
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby RKumar » 10 Nov 2018 21:31

Who knows is it K5 kick-off :?:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gagan » 10 Nov 2018 22:15

Wah-ji!
They are still "Successfully" testing the "Dhanush".

DRDO always seems to have a picture of the actual missile tested. Wonder if they fire two missiles, one after the other - one for the public, one the real one.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6333
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Supratik » 10 Nov 2018 23:20

As the article says it is a night user trial from production batch.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby srin » 10 Nov 2018 23:34

Dhanush in production :rotfl:

Btw, this is how it looks (video of an older launch):


Which ships in the IN can actually carry it (other than P51 - INS Subhadra) ? :D

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3029
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Nov 2018 09:50

Lots of smokes and mirror.
CT mode on: Could it also be to simulate the command & control from a sub (now that we have). Possibly for training more personnel? or limited communications.
CT mode off

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 12 Nov 2018 01:58

kurup wrote:Missile test on Nov 03/04 , Range ~ 350 km , Entire warning area over BoB ,

Image

https://twitter.com/kurup89/status/1057515904513331201

Whatever the shot, they fired it from a ship. May be the AShM DRDO is developing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2018 02:58

Matches Dhanush claim, 350kn, fired from ship. :lol:

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 12 Nov 2018 12:59

Never understood the purpose of Dhanush. Definitely more than what matches the eye. Probably a test bed for new technologies or our own carrier/ship killer or both. Who knows what's the real story?

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

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Shrinivasan » 12 Nov 2018 13:15

Prithvi and Dhanush have always served as test beds for new technology... let’s leave it at that...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 12 Nov 2018 22:06

Dhanush was the first navy operational deterrent missile.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 13 Nov 2018 01:12

I don't see why India will do a clandestine Dhanush launch today. DRDO is working on Antiship missiles. The SR version is publicly acknowledged (this year) as of 100 km. The MR is a speculated to be a 350 km range missile (adaptation of Pralay?)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 13 Nov 2018 01:13

Another set of missiles on which there has been a huge shroud of secrecy has been the Rudra II, Rudra IIA and Rudra III ASMs. They have been acknowledged:
1. air2surface missile to be tested from Su-30 with
2. 200 kg payload (for Rudra II)
3. Has IIR seeker.

P.S. Line drawing of the Rudra MIII from some DRDO tender.
Image
Apparently 1.6 tons and hypersonic ballastic ASM missile

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 13 Nov 2018 02:14

DRDL has sent out a tender for fabrication of 3 Scramjet engines.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby nam » 13 Nov 2018 02:58

There was a presentation by a DRDL scientist, explaining the progress made on the Scramjet combustor.

He mentioned they were able to consistently create combustion at pressures less than what is expected in flight. We may have a HSTDV launch next year.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 15 Nov 2018 10:52

Although, tenders have been floated for PCB and PF warheads of Rudra series, I think the reason behind their secrecy is because some of these will be nuclear tipped. This will provide the much needed standoff range to our current air delivery method of toss bombing. Integrating them on the Su-30s also provides higher range and flexibility vis-à-vis Jaguars and Mirage2000s. Not to mention autonomy.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2018 16:48

Indranil wrote:Another set of missiles on which there has been a huge shroud of secrecy has been the Rudra II, Rudra IIA and Rudra III ASMs. They have been acknowledged:
1. air2surface missile to be tested from Su-30 with
2. 200 kg payload (for Rudra II)
3. Has IIR seeker.

P.S. Line drawing of the Rudra MIII from some DRDO tender.
Image
Apparently 1.6 tons and hypersonic ballastic ASM missile


That's going on that unspeakable wreched chor news portal. :wink:

I did not see this diagram before. I remember the Flight testing related tender.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3452
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby kit » 15 Nov 2018 17:58

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:Another set of missiles on which there has been a huge shroud of secrecy has been the Rudra II, Rudra IIA and Rudra III ASMs. They have been acknowledged:
1. air2surface missile to be tested from Su-30 with
2. 200 kg payload (for Rudra II)
3. Has IIR seeker.

P.S. Line drawing of the Rudra MIII from some DRDO tender.
/quote]

That's going on that unspeakable wreched chor news portal. :wink:

I did not see this diagram before. I remember the Flight testing related tender.


are these the anti radiation missiles ?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2018 19:12

kit wrote:
JayS wrote:


are these the anti radiation missiles ?


No. We have NGARM for that one.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2018 23:14

Indranil, remember this. You are (IMHO) absolutely on the right track. See Air Launched Missile on the right.

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 15 Nov 2018 23:29

I think this is a family based on the same airframe. Otherwise why would a PCB, PF, or nuclear tipped missile have an IIR seeker. The only case where that makes sense (to me) is when this is used as an antiship missile.

Karan, you might have joined a dot there.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests