Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 05:28

JayS wrote:Someone please enlighten me - do we have any ongoing efforts on making our own CCM..?? If not why not...? At least I never seen any. What is stopping us from making a CCM, however primitive it might be in first iteration.


Astra is the first AAM effort. Until and unless DRDL demonstrates its capability there, taking another AAM project would be shot down by the user & merely remain a TD, again for which DRDL does not have ample scientific and financial resources. Its pretty straight forward really.

Once Astra enters service (and its variants mature), we can expect CCM to be on DRDL and IAFs roadmap as well.
Right now, IAF is in desperate need of a BVR AAM.

Its primary Russian AAM - the R77 is not reliable enough in earlier stocks & orders of AA-10 etc indicate, IAF was not convinced ordering newer batches will help. Hence the firm belief in upgraded Mirage 2000 (Mica) and Rafale.
The Astra program is hence the first and foremost priority, and offers a proper current generation missile for the primary fleet of Su-30s and MiG-29s and Tejas.

Coming to technology challenges - we will likely have to import FPA sensors, but we do have access from Israel & France. Its not the real issue. We are currently importing FPAs in bulk for our Nag, for hand-held and larger thermal imagers. The tech for those is not denied. What is denied is their optimization, which DRDO has to figure out on its own. In other words, making an integrated system out of the available FPAs which can match the integrated systems fielded by the local OEMs who have access to each & every nitty gritty of the performance envelope of these FPAs & have completely optimized systems (cooling to optics) to go along with these homegrown FPAs.
IIT iirc has made a start in making a home grown FPA but its primarily for hand held or larger devices for now.

Regarding the rest - thanks to Astra, QRSAM programs - we have significant progress in everything from propulsion to onboard avionics to structure to actuator to datalinks & overall system of systems learning.

Again, it is important to get Astra into service, and prove it, only then will IAF agree to have DRDL run around on new AAM programs.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Cosmo_R » 07 Sep 2017 05:41

In the event of a major conflagration with the PRC, how many conventional IRBMs could we bring to bear on our Northern flank and what are the pain points we could target that would give PRC pause as they consider hitting our cities?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 05:45

Akash was not suitable for the QRSAM role, hence DRDL got approval for its own QRSAM
Astra plugged a vital need, hence sanctioned
Akash Mk1S again is a tech insertion for existing Akash orders, hence approved
Akash Mk2 is a cost effective midway system between the expensive Barak/LRSAM program hence approved, given we have also made progress in AESA radars
Arudhra fills the expensive MPR category. Ashwini offers a local alternative to expensive GSM-100. ADTCR is necessary to replace the ageing Flycatcher, Reporter radars. MMSR got subsumed into QRSAM radar.
Bharani Mk2 is an IA specific Aslesha..

Point being DRDO is rarely taking the occasional non mission mode pure TD program. Its big-ticket programs are all directed towards fulfilling mission requirements of specific projects for armed forces.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 05:47

Cosmo_R wrote:In the event of a major conflagration with the PRC, how many conventional IRBMs could we bring to bear on our Northern flank and what are the pain points we could target that would give PRC pause as they consider hitting our cities?


Vivek Ahuja's work apart, there is no indication anywhere I have read that IA as of yet plans to field any conventional IRBM which are regarded as destabilizing to the n-deterrent and are hence entirely held by SFC.

The Pralay SRBM may enter IAF, IA service - operative word being may.

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 07 Sep 2017 07:23

the russians field the iskander M 500km range and the tochka with 180km range.
they understand the value of missiles where air support is not pervasive/overstretched in a QRA role.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 08:14

I agree. We should not limit ourselves to such measures in areas where we can actually field workable systems in numbers. IAF should have a dozen Pralay squadrons & another dozen Nirbhay Squadrons. Ditto for IA.

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 07 Sep 2017 09:56

the americans retain around 3000 of the 300km range ATACMS missile. they are being uprated to 500km and new seekers to strike moving targets. has also been exported to 7 nations.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gyan » 07 Sep 2017 13:48

The bogey of IRBM being de-stabilizing has been created to justify the super costly imports of Brahmos on one hand and to keep India's conventional abilities limited on another.

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 07 Sep 2017 14:08

there is value in having AF and army commanders have QRA ground to ground missiles on call. just one phone call from SF unit to hymenim and from 700km away the admiral essen released 3 * kalibr onto kobbajep village (could be iskanders or tochkas also as alternate use case ) .... we do not have enough CAS planes to act as flying ER artillery over a 3000km border ... infact nobody can guarantee so much CAS for time sensitive strikes. one would need a constant relay of armed a/c flying orbits near the front, and some refueling on way back to keep it up.

I have read IAF needs lead time of 'few hours' before it can respond to a call for IA for CAS/BAI mission. maybe in small wars the response time can be cut down but not in a general war where some missions will be planned a day in advance.


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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 07 Sep 2017 14:11

these per a later video from the ground were purpose made hardened concrete structures used for a vehicle repair and uparmouring workshop, storing small arms and such. the rats ran away fearing more strikes. a network of tunnels were found below the structure.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2017 14:57

Cosmo_R wrote:In the event of a major conflagration with the PRC, how many conventional IRBMs could we bring to bear on our Northern flank and what are the pain points we could target that would give PRC pause as they consider hitting our cities?

Pain points

Try this
Chinese Military Targets in Tibet

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2705
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby JTull » 07 Sep 2017 14:57

brar_w wrote:
How many missiles were fired? Let's compare it to number of tests of Akash!


May I ask why? Development and Operational testing of a new end item involves going through its envelope in order to not only verify its performance based on demanded requirements but also to develop an understanding of its operational employment. Field trials of fully developed systems however would be structured in such a way so as to go through and verify certain key attributes (or user specific requirements) as specified in the data shared by the OEM/Foreign Nation. Systems can take months to years to go through operational certification..No one replicates that process while buying systems that have already gone through that. You ask demonstrations in certain areas but do not repeat OT. You most certainly could do that, but then you would have to pay for the entire process yourself.


It's better to pay for the tests than pay for the entire system and find the brochure specs will never be met. R77 was also 'fully developed' until we found they were duds.

Why hold desi maal to a higher standard than foreign maal? Not enough kickbacks!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8263
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 07 Sep 2017 16:12

JTull wrote:
brar_w wrote:
May I ask why? Development and Operational testing of a new end item involves going through its envelope in order to not only verify its performance based on demanded requirements but also to develop an understanding of its operational employment. Field trials of fully developed systems however would be structured in such a way so as to go through and verify certain key attributes (or user specific requirements) as specified in the data shared by the OEM/Foreign Nation. Systems can take months to years to go through operational certification..No one replicates that process while buying systems that have already gone through that. You ask demonstrations in certain areas but do not repeat OT. You most certainly could do that, but then you would have to pay for the entire process yourself.


It's better to pay for the tests than pay for the entire system and find the brochure specs will never be met. R77 was also 'fully developed' until we found they were duds.

Why hold desi maal to a higher standard than foreign maal? Not enough kickbacks!


We do not yet know of the details of issues with the R-77. For all we know they could be reliability related and wouldn't show up during random field trials. This is where the comprehensiveness of the data provided to the evaluators by the OEM, and the reliability of the OEM (track record) comes into play. It takes dozen of shots, over months of range space, against multiple emitting and non emitting targets to comprehensively test an RF MRAAM. Depending upon range infrastructure, do you call for running an entire operational test footprint for each and every weapon acquired or tested? You would also need to test it out for reliability so put it through cycles to simulate prolonged storage and carriage.

Let us take an ABM system. Historically it takes 3-5 intercepts to hammer out development and put out a baseline capability. Operational Testing, and operationally relevant, operational crew driven annual testing can add additional 2-3 shots a year as your front line troops develop skills and test out how the system performs in a relveant scenario. Do you want to knock out half a dozen ballistic missiles with the S-400 during field evaluations? It is common practice for interested parties/customers/operators to request participation, or observation of scheduled system tests to develop a better understanding of a weapon system that they may have some interest in.

This happens quite often during development and operational testing of systems in the West. It is not uncommon for multiple nations to have been present as observers during ballistic missile intercept tests at White Sands Missile range for example (this has been seen on patriot and even MEADS tests in the past), and we have many nations that observed recent USAF light attack demonstration program. Perhaps the MOD has a similar arrangement with Russian and western OEMs and are simply more discrete about it.

The reason you do this for an indigenous system is because it has never been done before. As developers you will have to go through the DT - OT with the latter preferably led by operational crews. You aren't duplicating testing and evaluation - you are doing it for the first time.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2212
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby manjgu » 07 Sep 2017 17:20

there was some news about IA officers seeing S 400 system in action recently...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8263
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 07 Sep 2017 17:30

^ This is what the discussion is about - the IAF conducting d trials on the system in Russia.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gyan » 07 Sep 2017 17:43

Karan M wrote:Add to the list people.

Indian Missile and Munitions Programs, as of 2017 wrote:
SSMs
Prithvi, 100-250km range, liquid fuelled
• Prithvi -1/2/3 - all in service
• Naval variant: Dhanush, 350km- Navy - in service

Agni: Have MaRVs, MIRV & countermeasures in development
• 1/2/3/4 - in production/deployed
• 5 - development, trials successful, 5000 km version. SFC user trials pending.
• MIRV development in progress.

K-series/SLBM
• SLBM/B-05: 700 Km range, developed, test bed for K-4 technologies for Arihant
• SLBM/K-4, 3500 km range: test fired from Arihant, presumably deployed. Also the base missile for S3, S4, S4*
• Next steps, MIRV & 5000 km versions

Prahaar/Strike SSM
• 150 km, 200 kg warhead missile to "bridge the gap" between the conventional Pinaka MRLS at 40 km range, to the Prithvi which has a range of 250km to 300 km. Being tweaked for the Army, and awaiting formal Army indent. Stated to have datalinked guidance and will hence be more cost effective/precise than "dumb" missiles. Six missiles can be launched at different targets. Developed from the AAD design of the BMD program.
• Orders not placed as of yet

Pralay/Strike SSM
• Sanctioned in 2015
• Solid fuel, derived from PDV BMD missile, can strike 500km with 800kg payload
• 10m CEP
• Intended to supplement Brahmos with a low cost flexible strike option for the Army

Brahmos:
• Blocks1/2/3 all developed. Block 3 for Navy & Army allows top attack & seeker discrimination of specific targets. In production.
• AF: Development underway; IAF has ordered 200+ missiles for 40+ Su-30 MKI. Two trials aircraft sent for modification. Special MKIs need to be structurally modified for carrying a single Brahmos on centerline.
• Mini-Brahmos: In development to allow upto 3 Brahmos per Su-30 MKI and also Brahmos carriage by MRCA class aircraft
• Brahmos 2: In development with Russia for hypersonic Brahmos.
• Seeker indigenization in progress: Two programs - one for advanced seeker & another for current programs. Both seekers can be used across Indian programs.
• 450km version test fired, 900 version next. All Brahmos missiles will be modified to new standard. Changes required for 450km version "today: software changes to the fire control system and mission computer, and miniaturisation of some hardware elements in the propulsion system."

Nuclear deterrent:
• ALA: Air Launched Article, 200km, nuclear missile for Su-30 force. In development

Cruise Missiles:
• LRCM: Ramjet equipped long range cruise missile for all three services, in development, 700km-1000 km range
• Nirbhay: Subsonic, stealthy 1000km+ missile for all three services, multiple tests. First 2 successful, next 2 unsucessful. Focus on suppliers before retrial. Basic design not to be changed. Also, seeker & propulsion indigenization underway.

BMD:
• Phase 1: PDV & AAD ready for deployment. GOI has given go-ahead and preparation underway.
• Phase 2: For Target Missiles > 2000 km class, in development. AD-1 and AD-2, hypersonic missiles

ATGM/ General purpose:
Nag
• Army land version version under refinement, 4 km range. Block1 seeker in production at BDL, Block 2 developed for better performance in Indian deserts @ afternoon. Tests in 2017. Army orders still awaited.
• Helicopter version @7km, called HELINA, in development. See above for seeker details.
• Further variants for fixed wing strike aircraft under development. RF seeker trialed in 2011-12, presumably for this.
SAMHO/CLGM
• Semiactive laser guided missile similar to the LAHAT. Intended for launch by both ground launchers and tanks. In advanced development, probably in trials as prototypes have been displayed already for couple of years now. Finally, alternative available to Milan/Konkurs as well.
MPATGM
• New program to field an advanced ATGM, similar to the Javelin. In advanced development, tenders placed for specific subsystems. BDL to be partner for manufacturing.

ASM:
• NGARM: New program announced in 2012; in advanced development, trials to be conducted in 2017-18. Dual-stage (DRDO leveraging LRSAM/MRSAM motor knowledge), solid fuelled with 100 km range. Also includes a MMW seeker (for terminal targeting presumably)
• Name unknown: Missile with multiple precision guided warheads, range of 200 km for platform. UAVs variants also being explored to "launch PGMs" and then be recovered for cost effectiveness. Tech demo in 2013, with tests of a configured missile in 2015-16.
• Name unknown: Light antiship missile for naval helicopters: In development, unknown if a formal program is being launched.
• HSTDV: Hypersonic Tech demo program to develop indigenous hypersonic capability independent from Brahmos program, flight trials details awaited
• SAAW - Smart Anti Airfield Weapon: Successfully tested for AF, advanced stage of development. 120kg, penetrator warhead, 100km range, intended for Jaguar, Su-30 MKI and will be extended to Rafale. Winged system. Tested from Jaguar and Su30MKI successfully in 2016. Unknown if it has a propulsion system

SAMs:
• SRSAM: Deal with MBDA for codevelopment yet to be signed, likely stalled given QRSAM progress; reports note range is now 20 km with negotiations concluded with MBDA, only GOI clearance awaited. Trishul development complete but system wont be inducted.
• LRSAM/MRSAM with Israel: LRSAM versions in induction, range likely 90 km (rather than originally expected 70km). Motor, missile components, C3I & TELs from India for LRSAM/MRSAM. LRSAM is for Navy and is on order as is MRSAM for IAF, which wants 9 squadrons with 2 fire units each. Radars will likely be imported with some subsystems (eg TX/RX modules) license made in India & complete set up and calibration done at BEL. IA has also been cleared to ordered five regiments, IA Akash regiments have upto 6 firing units (3 times IAF size). MRSAM IA regiments are stated to have 40 firing units (8 per regiment).
• Akash: MK1 development complete, in production (8 Sq for AF, two regiments for Army); 8 squadron order pending on price negotiation with BEL.
Akash NG in development, active seekers, 50km range with 10 targets engage. MK1S program in development, technology insertion for Akash Mk1 program with active seekers.
• New SAM: New design, with range of 150km. Status unknown.
• QRSAM: New Astra/Trishul/LRSAM technology derived missile with all new configuration (AESA FCR/SR on Trucks for mobility). 30km range, multi-target handling, fire on short stop, track while move. Meant for IA needs but derivative likely for Navy as SRSAM.

AAMs:
• Astra: MK1 variant was to have Range max of 80 km, MK2 of 110 km. Missile was redesigned in 2010-12 and underwent series of trials in 2012, with problems stated to be resolved and complete redesign done. Range now suggested as 100 km+, but remains to be confirmed. Original range specifications were 80 km in head on & 20 km in tail chase. Amongst other new capabilities mentioned are buddy launch, LOBL and HOBs capability (+/-45 degrees). Reports mention seeker integration challenges have been overcome, with new info stating ", improved multitarget handling and excellent ECCM". Trials with Russian seeker complete in 2016-17, IAF has placed LSP of 50 units for production stabilization at BDL. Next trials with new Indian seeker underway.
• Ramjet program underway. In cooperation with Russian, can either be the basis of a new Meteor class AAM or new SAMs.

MLRS:
• Pinaka Mk1: 40km, developed and in production, teething issues with ramping up numbers being resolved. OFB issues with ammunition basically. 2 regiments in service, 2 ordered in 2016. MOD has floated RFP for 6 more regiments. Order may be split between Mk2
• Pinaka MK2: 60 KM range, several successful trials. Guided & extended range.

PGMs:
• LGB: Sudarshan MK1 for AF. Range of 9 km. Project cancelled. Sudarshan MK2 with INS/satnav in development, 50 km range noted in 2012, new design will seek to minimize rolling observed with MK1. Status, unknown.
• Garuda/Garuthma programs: Seeker, satnav, equipped basic JDAM equivalent with 30 km range. Garuthma is the winged version with 100km range. Trialed, in development. IAF orders expected.
• Lightweight PGM program: RCI program. Sathish Reddy: "PGM has already been test-fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle and a sizeable number can also be carried by a missile like the Prithvi or by an aircraft like the Su-30 MKI. The Prithvi configuration can be used for attacking runways for example. "
Will have MMW seeker developed, also being used for NGARM



Very comprehensive. Nothing is missing . Though I hope DRDO launch R&D programme for AAM WVR and Manpad development also, as these are the only substantial missiles as a category that are not being developed by DRDO.

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 07 Sep 2017 19:57

• LRCM: Ramjet equipped long range cruise missile for all three services, in development, 700km-1000 km range


I believe this program is now superseded by Brahmos-ER ( 900 km version ) as post MTCR we are in no restriction of Range/Payload for JV and we dont find DRDO talking about LRCM for a long timer now.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby chola » 07 Sep 2017 20:05

Austin wrote:
• LRCM: Ramjet equipped long range cruise missile for all three services, in development, 700km-1000 km range


I believe this program is now superseded by Brahmos-ER ( 900 km version ) as post MTCR we are in no restriction of Range/Payload for JV and we dont find DRDO talking about LRCM for a long timer now.


Yeah, it was shelved by DRDO. I remember reading this.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby chola » 07 Sep 2017 20:13

Here is the article on LRCM.

http://idrw.org/india-gave-supersonic-long-range-cruise-missile-programme/

LRCM with a reported range of 600km could have negated 290km range limit set by Russia on BrahMos due to MTCR regulation and due to high indigenous percentage new cruise missile could have been less expensive weapons system but easily matched in performance and capability with highly acclaimed BrahMos cruise missile but with twice its range . As per presentation slide available missile was supposed to be ready for developmental flights by 2017 by it has more or less has been shelved by DRDO due to limited technology access, and technology challenges predicted internally by DRDO .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53956
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2017 21:15

JayS wrote:Someone please enlighten me - do we have any ongoing efforts on making our own CCM..?? If not why not...? At least I never seen any. What is stopping us from making a CCM, however primitive it might be in first iteration.


Very good question for old trimmers like me to answer.

BDL, Hyderabad was making license production of the Atoll Infra Red guided missile since mid 1970s.
As you know from performance in 1965 war and even 1971, it was quite an iffy missile.

Atoll was quite often attracted to heat radiation from the earth and would dive down.
Accounts of Air Marshal M.S. Wollen being enraged and wishing for a gun pod when the Atoll just went to the earth are there in this forum itself.
It was a copy of first generation Sidewinder.

No effort was made to improve on it. For instance the electronics could have been converted to solid state transistors, the seeker could have better cooler. Any number of things like a chopper circuit to distinguish between heat sources.*

Some say the Astra was a big leap forward to get BVR capability and as usual it has taken long years to get there. Mean time CCM are still imports: Magic, Russian, and now Python.


Israel on the other hand improved on the Sidewinder even when they had access to latest US import hardware.
The Python was a result of it. It had a larger warhead and better electronics of their own design and manufacture.
And then went on to make Derby class of BVR.


* The IN had the Styx Ship to Ship Missile with crappy electronics which were successful in 1971 war. Yet they did not rest on their butts and made so many electronics improvements to the seeker so it would not get decoyed.

I think user has to decide they want something better and not just demand from elsewhere.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 21:29

Gyan wrote:The bogey of IRBM being de-stabilizing has been created to justify the super costly imports of Brahmos on one hand and to keep India's conventional abilities limited on another.


Prithvi SRBM IMO was part of the problem. Its dual role - conventional and also part of SFC would give jittery fingers to the opponent, or so it seemed. Anyhow, I dont think either PRC or TSP are so dumb that they have launch on warning or launch on launch procedures as versus launch on impact. TSP perhaps if it feels we are doing a decapitating strike and it has no retaliatory capability. Perhaps that's what worried our planners, that a 20 Prithvis in the air would make TSP Jarnails brown their shalwars and launch a n-strike.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 21:40

Austin, Chola - thanks, it makes logical sense. IDRW likely picked on that train of thought. But I do hope we continue to have our own program for an indigenized engine at least. I guess if its being done, its being done silently, so as not to make the Russians unhappy. This was the plan (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/b ... 568440.ece) but then Brahmos started making conciliatory noises about there being no such intention etc. I hope DRDO/Brahmos bigwigs show some common sense and start thinking about our own engines. The Chinese by now would have been on engine Mk3 or whatever after having reverse engineered the engines, to even the last discoloration on the metal.

Thakur, so your take is Garuda supercedes the Sudarshan.

Gyan - thanks and I also hope the same.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gyan » 07 Sep 2017 21:47

Karan, Shaurya/Sagrika are also same motors as PDV/Pralay? They seem thinner..?.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gyan » 07 Sep 2017 21:50

Karan M wrote:
Gyan wrote:The bogey of IRBM being de-stabilizing has been created to justify the super costly imports of Brahmos on one hand and to keep India's conventional abilities limited on another.


Prithvi SRBM IMO was part of the problem. Its dual role - conventional and also part of SFC would give jittery fingers to the opponent, or so it seemed. Anyhow, I dont think either PRC or TSP are so dumb that they have launch on warning or launch on launch procedures as versus launch on impact. TSP perhaps if it feels we are doing a decapitating strike and it has no retaliatory capability. Perhaps that's what worried our planners, that a 20 Prithvis in the air would make TSP Jarnails brown their shalwars and launch a n-strike.


Unlike in Tom Clancy novels nobody will fire 20 Prithvi Missiles in one go. Max 20 in a day. That's also unlikely. And how is Brahmos justified? On same pretext, we cannot use Nirbhay also.

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby malushahi » 07 Sep 2017 21:55

tsarkar wrote:Pakistan supplied Stingers to LTTE in exchange for LTTE ferrying arms to Moro Islamic Militants in Philippines.

i am aware of training provided by ltte, but not gun-running. can you share more details/links? thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53956
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2017 22:17

malushahi, Now that you have lead you can do your own research as such a link would be available in Google.

KaranM, The big obstacle is the foolish desire to arm the Prithvi with nukes*. I don't know if it happened or not, but many silly articles in Janes etc. by half wits has caused the situation that short range BMs became taboo.

In the IGMP Agni series was the deterrent carrier clearly. But some former Arty officers started peddling armageddon scenarios of Prithvis carry in nukes. I don't know what they wanted to achieve but it effectively neutered the SSM from any strike role.
So much so that after Kargil, Agni I was developed to preclude this scenario. But the writers persisted in peddling nightmare articles.

Pravin Sawheney and ilk come to mind.

*If you do rocket equation calculations, the Prithvi is an aero ballistic missile and its speed is within range of a good SAM!!!!
So how can it be nuke armed when India has the Agni II and I?

Prithvi was supposed to be Corps level Ballistic Missile to support deep battle of 150 km. It was conventional from the get go.

Off course one will find some desperate quote from some high official that it could be dual armed and then go off on a tangent. I submit that is a secondary role if all else fails.

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby malushahi » 07 Sep 2017 22:20

ramana wrote:malushahi, Now that you have lead you can do your own research as such a link would be available in Google.

thanks ramana. that is very helpful.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 22:45

Gyan wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Prithvi SRBM IMO was part of the problem. Its dual role - conventional and also part of SFC would give jittery fingers to the opponent, or so it seemed. Anyhow, I dont think either PRC or TSP are so dumb that they have launch on warning or launch on launch procedures as versus launch on impact. TSP perhaps if it feels we are doing a decapitating strike and it has no retaliatory capability. Perhaps that's what worried our planners, that a 20 Prithvis in the air would make TSP Jarnails brown their shalwars and launch a n-strike.


Unlike in Tom Clancy novels nobody will fire 20 Prithvi Missiles in one go. Max 20 in a day. That's also unlikely. And how is Brahmos justified? On same pretext, we cannot use Nirbhay also.


Why can't you fire 20 in one go or even a 100? Its all about how many you make and how many targets you have!

Different matter that our Gandhian GOI will only do half baked production and half baked funding of solid fuel replacements and picked the nose on the whole matter till ABV forced the issue in 1999.

The point is Prithvi is in SFC but Brahmos (so far, apart from one ref from Karnad) is purely conventional.

Nirbhay - wonder what the plan is. If it goes to both SFC & conventional roles, then yes, this entire discussion is moot.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 22:55

ramana wrote:malushahi, Now that you have lead you can do your own research as such a link would be available in Google.

KaranM, The big obstacle is the foolish desire to arm the Prithvi with nukes*. I don't know if it happened or not, but many silly articles in Janes etc. by half wits has caused the situation that short range BMs became taboo.

In the IGMP Agni series was the deterrent carrier clearly. But some former Arty officers started peddling armageddon scenarios of Prithvis carry in nukes. I don't know what they wanted to achieve but it effectively neutered the SSM from any strike role.
So much so that after Kargil, Agni I was developed to preclude this scenario. But the writers persisted in peddling nightmare articles.

Pravin Sawheney and ilk come to mind.

*If you do rocket equation calculations, the Prithvi is an aero ballistic missile and its speed is within range of a good SAM!!!!
So how can it be nuke armed when India has the Agni II and I?

Prithvi was supposed to be Corps level Ballistic Missile to support deep battle of 150 km. It was conventional from the get go.

Off course one will find some desperate quote from some high official that it could be dual armed and then go off on a tangent. I submit that is a secondary role if all else fails.


Thats a good point. Why have a cumbersome RFN missile when solid fuelled Agnis are around. As of 2016, reports kept indicating SFC still has Prithvi stocks.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 006905.cms

Only reason I can surmise is the Agnis may have replaced the Prithvi as the primary deterrent, but we still have huge numbers of "Prithvi"-2s which remains a workhorse "backup".

I completely agree Ramana that the loose lips of some attention seeking types has caused all sorts of dubious theories to muddle our deterrence posture. They deliberately bait national agencies to reveal details, which if these agencies had full GOI support, would keep their lips shut.

Sawhenys, Pandits attacks on DRDO for instance let it to expose its crown jewel the BMD program, to what end? It should have been a complete black ops program run closely with services involvement to game possible threats, build user confidence and deployed in secret. Come wartime, it should have been mentioned to put the opponent off guard (then it acts as deterrence, or even the one time) or even otherwise, it would have been worth its weight in gold, for we would have protection for our cities while the opponents did not have enough missiles to saturate it.

It just shows how rotten the state of affairs under UPA was. Multiple political centers trying to make hay and national missions and aim went for a toss.

Even now, leaks are leaking away. Other day, there was a report of two villages mentioned for BMD deployment. Unless disinformation, what was the purpose exactly..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 22:59

Gyan wrote:Karan, Shaurya/Sagrika are also same motors as PDV/Pralay? They seem thinner..?.


My take is these will be custom motors tailored to each missile which have not entered series production.
I sincerely hope Pralay enters service!

BTW, if you look at Brahmos's FCS, it has salvo fire mode - guess where it's from? The Prithvi FCS, a salvo of 3 missiles a one go.

So 20 launches is hardly out of the reams of probability.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Sep 2017 23:02

Regarding Prithvi in SFC, a quote from MOD some 4 years back on a test quotes a SFC official:

" A missile unit of the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) today morning successfully launched the indigenously developed surface-to-surface/ nuclear capable Prithvi II missile with a strike range of around 350Kms, from the test range at Chandipur, off the Odisha Coast. It was a perfect text-book launch and the missile equipped with advanced high accuracy indigenously developed navigation and manoeuvring system, the missile achieved all its targeting and technical parameters, set out for this launch.The missile trajectory was tracked by the DRDO radars, electro-optical tracking systems and telemetry stations located along the coast of Odisha. The downrange teams onboard the ship deployed near the designated impact point in the Bay of Bengal had monitored the terminal events and splashdown.

Inducted into India’s Strategic Forces Command in 2003, the Prithvi II missile, the first missile to be developed by DRDO under India’s prestigious IGMDP (Integrated Guided Missile Development Program) is now a proven technology. The launch was part of a regular training exercise of the SFC and was monitored by DRDO scientists. Programme Director, AD Sri Adalat Ali, Sri N. Siva Subramanyam, Project Director and others were present to oversee the launch operations.

The missile being based on a mobile Transporter Erector Launcher Vehicle is versatile and designed for quick manoeuvrability and high operational flexibility on the battlefield.

Quoting an SFC spokesman, ‘Such successful training launches clearly indicate our operational readiness to meet any eventuality as also establishes the reliability of this deterrent component of India’s Strategic arsenal’.

The Defence Minister, Shri A K Antony has congratulated the Prithvi-II team for the success."

Note the Prithvi-2 seems to have been upgraded to a full 350km range.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1970
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Kakarat » 09 Sep 2017 18:57

Successful Flight Test of 3rd Generation Anti Tank Guided Missile – NAG

India’s indigenously developed 3rd generation Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), Nag has been successfully flight tested twice by DRDO on 8-9-2017 against two different targets in the ranges of Rajasthan.

The ATGM Nag missile has successfully hit both the targets under different ranges and conditions with very high accuracy as desired by the Armed Forces.

With these two successful flight trials, and the flight test conducted earlier in June in the peak of summer, the complete functionality of Nag ATGM along with launcher system NAMICA has been established and marked the successful completion of development trials of Nag Missile.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1191
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby prasannasimha » 09 Sep 2017 19:03

sSo no more obfuscation wrt the Nag missile

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby YashG » 09 Sep 2017 19:57

Kakarat wrote:Successful Flight Test of 3rd Generation Anti Tank Guided Missile – NAG

India’s indigenously developed 3rd generation Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), Nag has been successfully flight tested twice by DRDO on 8-9-2017 against two different targets in the ranges of Rajasthan.

The ATGM Nag missile has successfully hit both the targets under different ranges and conditions with very high accuracy as desired by the Armed Forces.

With these two successful flight trials, and the flight test conducted earlier in June in the peak of summer, the complete functionality of Nag ATGM along with launcher system NAMICA has been established and marked the successful completion of development trials of Nag Missile.


Lungi Dance? How long before Nag & NAMICA see Serial production & induction? 6 months?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3436
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby suryag » 09 Sep 2017 20:03

This time summer wasn't great in pokhran and it has to wait until next summer. Also the commanders sight needs hd mode with ir and depth sensing at 4km range, so it might be another 3-4 years

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2017 20:11

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8145
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Pratyush » 09 Sep 2017 20:13

I have been seeing reports of successful nag tests since 1987 -88 at least. But not so successful that serial production can begin.

So fingers crossed .

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1855
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby srin » 09 Sep 2017 21:30

It only says "development trials" are complete. Does that mean there'll be a series of "user trials" ? And until the DAC clears it, there won't be production, no ?

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

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby vasu raya » 09 Sep 2017 22:19

from the big list, there is no program for 'wingman' missile for roles such as expendable jammer or generating radar signatures to shadow the manned aircraft, its helpful for non stealthy aircraft. Nirbhay might be closer to this concept with its endurance

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53956
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2017 23:33

Nag after production will have acceptance trials. That's different.

Meanwhile:


http://idrw.org/india-successfully-test ... hsld-bomb/

This huge. Sudarshannreplacement and works with HSLD.

Note the guidance kit is DRDO developed kit. It's after Sudarshan was scrapped as this was in development. Israeli Griffin kit did not work with HSLD as the aerodynamic coefficients were designed for 500 kg NATO std bomb. I like HSLD as it has more explosive fill and has very good concrete penetration. All those Fizzleya aircraft shelters will be toast.
If DRDO can make this kit work with the new 500 kg GP bomb it will reduce the logistics trail.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest