Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 14 Jul 2017 16:34

Rajeev wrote:
jamwal wrote:This article claims in missiles section that the launcher is pulled by a Volvo truck a d cites DRDO 2014 newsletter. Nothing about trucks is mentioned there.

I think the article is referring to following in DRDO newsletter about Akash

https://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsletter ... une_14.pdf

The cost-effective Akash missile system is modular and mobile with all its components including launchers either wheeled truck or trailer mounted. Good lateral acceleration capability of missile till intercept provides high manoeuvrability and capability against high performance air targets, such as tactical strike aircraft, bombers, high altitude reconnaissance aeroplane and armed helicopters

I've seen only Tatra, Ashoka Leyland or Tata trucks till now, not Volvo. Anyhow it's just a random observation.

disha · Post by **disha** » 15 Jul 2017 00:50

Karthik S wrote:...and Chinese officials have already debunked Indian claim of 5500 km slated range of Agni-V and have said that it is capable of striking targets 8,000 km away with a lighter payload which technically could mean that with a full payload a lighter Agni-V might be able to strike over 7000km range and with light payload over 9000km and Agni-VI could be 10000km capable ICBM with reported range of 6000km .

IGMDP came a long long way. When DRDO tested a missile 25 years back., doubts would be raised about its range and accuracy. Particularly range. Jingoes will read those range numbers and go into "hatasha" mode (Hindi for 'despair'/'despairing')

Now, when DRDO tests Agni (or even talks about it)., again usual suspects raise doubts about its range. Particularly range. Jingoes will read those range numbers and go "natasha" mode (play on word 'hatasha' to indicate fan-boy'ism).

The more things change., the more it remains the same.

*PS: The very news of MIRV Agni-V is sending shivers down the Zhuang. I think we need to add Zhuang shivering in our lexicon.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jul 2017 02:40

jamwal wrote:
Rajeev wrote:

I think the article is referring to following in DRDO newsletter about Akash

https://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsletter ... une_14.pdf

The cost-effective Akash missile system is modular and mobile with all its components including launchers either wheeled truck or trailer mounted. Good lateral acceleration capability of missile till intercept provides high manoeuvrability and capability against high performance air targets, such as tactical strike aircraft, bombers, high altitude reconnaissance aeroplane and armed helicopters
I've seen only Tatra, Ashoka Leyland or Tata trucks till now, not Volvo. Anyhow it's just a random observation.

The trailer for Agni-V is pulled by a Volvo prime mover. You could see it in the RD parade. Can it be replaced by an Indian made prime mover. Most likely yes. But that is not a true solution. We need a dedicated TEL platform like the ones from MZKT.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jul 2017 02:57

Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.

Rudra M-II has been reported as an ASM till now everywhere. It is actually a SAM.

Assistance is required for assembly and testing of Rudra M-II SAM units for PF warhead and PCB warhead. Total quantity of SAM units is 100 Nos. (50 each for PF and PCB Warhead) As the quantity of SAM units is more and has multiple sub-assemblies, the assistance is required during the preparation of SAM units for various tests.

So what could it be? M-II sounds like the second iteration. Of what?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2017 04:21

PF= Pre-Fragmented
PCB=?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Jul 2017 07:39

ramana wrote:PF= Pre-Fragmented
PCB=?

Penetration Cum Blast.

Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) and the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), research wings of the DRDO based in Pune designed new ammunition meant specifically for the Arjun tank. The Penetration-cum-Blast (PCB) and Thermobaric (TB) Ammunition were successfully test fired in Odisha, demonstrating the devastating power of the ammunition against concrete structures, fortifications and armour plates.

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis ... 53591.html

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 15 Jul 2017 07:59

Why a SAM will need a PCB warhead

And I think PF stands for "proximity fuze", not Pre-Fragmented.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Jul 2017 08:06

This link says it's Air to Surface missile.

http://idrw.org/drdos-rudra-m-ii-missil ... over-soon/

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 15 Jul 2017 08:09

Sid wrote:Why a SAM will need a PCB warhead

And I think PF stands for "proximity fuze", not Pre-Fragmented.

Both direct and indirect kill if it's SAM

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 15 Jul 2017 12:19

integrate A-4/5 with C-17.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 15 Jul 2017 13:37

malushahi wrote:integrate A-4/5 with C-17.

What for?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2017 17:09

It wouldn't be hard to develop an air launched ballistic missile using a transporter. C-17s do it already for MRBM and IRBM (one launched just last week) targets and C-5's have launched Minuteman ICBMs in the past to test the concept. But what extra capability does that get you over road mobile TELs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5AXxUcElU

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 15 Jul 2017 18:23

^^^
1. unpredictability. a tel is a tel; how does one look inside a cargo mover? how different is the radar cross section of a mil-cargo mover from a commercial one?
2. way shorter reaction time for the kill vehicle vis-a-vis one launched from terrestrial tel (road or rail).

what do the above 2 beget? a very potent asymmetric capability for a relatively low budget.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2017 18:26

Better to develop Rail Mobile A-5 , That thing can travel thousand of km in a day and can be any where in dense Railway network of Indian Railways from south to north east to jammu as long as and as far as railways go and is cost effective and impossible to detect while on move

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 15 Jul 2017 18:36

there are only so many "special" facilities where those "coaches" get loaded and serviced. adversaries with significant space assets would have a track on at least some of them.

air-launched. not so much. one would imagine little to no mod to the carrier. complete plug and play, with effectively half the reaction time (that too if only one has space based assets to discern the boost phase). assassin's mace, to borrow a phrase.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2017 18:46

malushahi wrote:there are only so many "special" facilities where those "coaches" get loaded and serviced. adversaries with significant space assets would have a track on at least some of them

Hardly when they start moving into rail network you wont know what these are and when you have decoy trains to travelling in these rail network , its a much cheaper option something we are using from A-2 days and proven one at it.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2017 23:06

titash wrote:
Indranil wrote:Although the shape of QRSAM has remained as that shown in DRDO tender, I am completely taken aback by the propulsion system. Obviously, it is a dual-thrust propulsion system. The lower part of the missile (like in Trishul) seems to be made of maraging steel, while the upper part is composite. But, four 4 separate motors for boost phase?

More likely a single motor but 4 vectored thrust nozzles? sea harrier style?

Thrust vectoring NOT like sea harrier style, but more likely of AAD missile style.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2017 23:12

negi wrote:I also saw that with QRSAM the only similar in fact a bit more flared out motor I saw was in 1st gen Nag missile.

Have you not noticed the ballooning exhaust plume of AAD missile, the way you described QRSAM exhaust?
Check this:

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2017 23:19

As i said,
QRSAM = AAD + ASTRA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jul 2017 02:50

The flare out is because the missile is not moving fast enough when it is just being launched. AADs thrust vectoring mechanism is different.

I think there are 4 movable exhaust nozzles on the QRSAM.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Jul 2017 07:18

DRDO Astra
http://tejasmrca.weebly.com/weapons--mu ... ra-missile

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Jul 2017 07:42

QR-SAM
http://tejasmrca.weebly.com/land-systems/qr-sam

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2017 07:53

Rakesh wrote:DRDO Astra
http://tejasmrca.weebly.com/weapons--mu ... ra-missile

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Jul 2017 09:42

yes AAD seems to have an arrangement similar to a thrust vane ; however QRSAM's picture shows a bit more details and it has plumes which have distinct separation , question is are these because of separate nozzles ?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Jul 2017 23:30

I think the illusion of 4 plumes in QRSAM is created by smoke covering portion of plume.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Jul 2017 04:19

Thakur_B ji detected QR-SAM in October 2015

Thakur_B wrote:
Comprehensive list of aerospace testing facilities in India.
http://atfi.dlis.du.ac.in/ATF.php

New missile under EMI/EMC test at RCI ? QRSAM maybe ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 17 Jul 2017 09:40

^^thats Trishul, not QRSAM.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Jul 2017 21:50

Indranil wrote:Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.

Rudra M-II has been reported as an ASM till now everywhere. It is actually a SAM.
Assistance is required for assembly and testing of Rudra M-II SAM units for PF warhead and PCB warhead. Total quantity of SAM units is 100 Nos. (50 each for PF and PCB Warhead) As the quantity of SAM units is more and has multiple sub-assemblies, the assistance is required during the preparation of SAM units for various tests.
So what could it be? M-II sounds like the second iteration. Of what?

PCB Warhead, if it stands for 'Penetration cum Blast', it is more likely to be used against land based structures/objects(also against Submarines), that are so hardened/protected that, to destroy it, needed penetration and then blast not just simple (explosive)blast.

Definitely such warhead is not needed for planes/hellis. In such case, SAM here is not Surface to Air missile, could be Safety Arming Mechanism.

So,

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Jul 2017 22:07

Indranil wrote:The flare out is because the missile is not moving fast enough when it is just being launched. AADs thrust vectoring mechanism is different.

I think there are 4 movable exhaust nozzles on the QRSAM.

Of course, we can't deny anything. There is something that causes this exhaust 'flare out'.

I believe here, TVC of the AAD type is employed.

Immaterial of whether this 'flare out' is due to TVC Vanes(AAD type) or not, there is TVC control.

Other likely reason is such 'flare out' is purposely engineered to protect the nearby equipment & crew/troops during the launch phase, similar to Nag missile, thereby validating initial observation of tsarkar ji.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Jul 2017 22:15

The 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles on the S400 system have 4 nozzles in the first stage I suspect even Aster 30 has multiple nozzles in the first stage booster.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Jul 2017 22:36

Kanson wrote:
Indranil wrote:Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.

Rudra M-II has been reported as an ASM till now everywhere. It is actually a SAM.

So what could it be? M-II sounds like the second iteration. Of what?
PCB Warhead, if it stands for 'Penetration cum Blast', it is more likely to be used against land based structures/objects(also against Submarines), that are so hardened/protected that, to destroy it, needed penetration and then blast not just simple (explosive)blast.

Definitely such warhead is not needed for planes/hellis. In such case, SAM here is not Surface to Air missile, could be Safety Arming Mechanism.

So,

Makes sense.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2017 22:36

How about a dyslexic typo Rudra II is an ASM and not SAM.

ASM would be air to surface missile.

Then it would fit all the above descriptions of PF and PCB warheads.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Jul 2017 23:09

Rudra M-II -> SAAW ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Jul 2017 23:18

Kanson wrote: I believe here, TVC of the AAD type is employed.

Fair enough.

Kanson wrote: Immaterial of whether this 'flare out' is due to TVC Vanes(AAD type) or not, there is TVC control.

The flare out is not because of TVC.

Kanson wrote:
Other likely reason is such 'flare out' is purposely engineered to protect the nearby equipment & crew/troops during the launch phase, similar to Nag missile, thereby validating initial observation of tsarkar ji.

The 'flare out' of Nag was not to give protection. That is called soft launch, and is typically part of MP-ATGMs. The reason for those oblique nozzles was because the booster is placed ahead of the sustainer. It has been done away with in the recent versions. VK Saraswat sahab explained the new config at his IIT-B talk. In the new config, the exhaust from the booster is taken through a "blast tube" to the nozzle at the back during the boost phase. Old on the left. New on the right.

New configuration has been tested multiple times. I remember complimenting Tarmak007 for bringing out the first pictures of the same.

Although this configuration is better than previous config, does anybody know why the booster was placed ahead of the sustainer in first place. I am assuming that jettisoning the booster is not an option. But something like a dual-thrust motor (like one in Trishul) was an option available to them. It would be simpler and lighter. Trishul's motor worked like a charm.

And yes, I wish they were developing cheaper indigenous laser guided ATGMs. I mean the speed of development of CLGM/SAMHO is horribly slow.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 17 Jul 2017 23:49

Indranil wrote: The 'flare out' of Nag was not to give protection. That is called soft launch, and is typically part of MP-ATGMs. The reason for those oblique nozzles was because the booster is placed ahead of the sustainer. It has been done away with in the recent versions. VK Saraswat sahab explained the new config at his IIT-B talk. In the new config, the exhaust from the booster is taken through a "blast tube" to the nozzle at the back during the boost phase. Old on the left. New on the right.

New configuration has been tested multiple times. I remember complimenting Tarmak007 for bringing out the first pictures of the same.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0fSPVzCYAALNPb.jpg:large

Although this configuration is better than previous config, does anybody know why the booster was placed ahead of the sustainer in first place. I am assuming that jettisoning the booster is not an option. But something like a dual-thrust motor (like one in Trishul) was an option available to them. It would be simpler and lighter. Trishul's motor worked like a charm.

And yes, I wish they were developing cheaper indigenous laser guided ATGMs. I mean the speed of development of CLGM/SAMHO is horribly slow.

I think you have mistaken, the picture is actually comparison between new Helina and Nag. I dont know about VK Saraswat sahab's IIT-B talk but to my understanding the Nag's four nozzle single motor configuration was to protect the equipments on launcher from the blast force of a single exhaust. It was don away with on air launch Helina for which a single exhaust was better than 4.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2017 00:17

Indranil, I saw a video of an Israeli ATGM (SPIKE?) which had similar mid-body four exhaust missile.

So that technology is being used by others.

NAG was the first that I know off.

From 'Wings of Fire', Nag is a product of DRDL development of an anti-tank missile and is named after Dr. Nag Chaudhri an early DRDO chief.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jul 2017 00:29

Karakat sahab,

I am pretty sure of what I wrote regarding the Nag/Helina. You can also see the same config for MPATGM.

"Soft launch" is achieved by a charge in the launch tube which propels the missile out of the tube, before the missile's rocket booster takes over. You can see it here.

Ramana sir,
Thank you for that snippet of info. That configuration has been used on other ATGMs as well for example, the TOW. I don't know why. Hence my question. By the way SAM/ASM is not a typo. It has been used tens of times in the tender. Even the project code says SAM. However, SAM may not mean Surface to Air Missile.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jul 2017 01:07

Surface Attack Missile?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jul 2017 01:35

Indranil wrote:Karakat sahab,

I am pretty sure of what I wrote regarding the Nag/Helina. You can also see the same config for MPATGM.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m6jD7M5zsjA/ ... MPATGM.jpg

The MPATGM is half the range and doesn't have have a booster motor. You may be correct and I was talking about the picture you posted. I remember reading somewhere on change in configuration of Helina motor only. we will know only when DRDO releases picture of latest Nag launch

Indranil wrote:"Soft launch" is achieved by a charge in the launch tube which propels the missile out of the tube, before the missile's rocket booster takes over. You can see it here.

Nag is not soft launch but hot launch, I have seen video of Nag launch from a tube without launcher in slow motion. I don't know if this video is available online

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jul 2017 01:46

Nag is not soft launched. We both agree on that. That's why I am saying that the oblique nozzles are not used to safeguard anything. It was because the sustainer was in the way.

You may be right with Helina and Nag not having the same configs. I hope not