Indian Missile Technology Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Austin » 27 Jul 2008 16:06

Nothing wrong in HTK having a warhead and nothing new , the PAC-3 is a HTK with a small warhead .

I think 25 Kg sounds fine. When production version of PAD emerges we might see improvement in the warhead weight , since I believe the present PAD might also carry telemetry and other test equipment.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 27 Jul 2008 23:26

25 Kg sounds right to me.

Almost certainly will be a shape charge high speed explosive.

Multiple interceptor payloads will be next step. Aka interceptor version of MIRV, each with its own seeker and terminal maneuver propulsion, to overcome adverse decoy to MIRV ratio.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 27 Jul 2008 23:34

for a 3000kg missile seems too small to me. I think Barak-1 has 20kg warhead, akash-55kg, PAC-3 around 78kg, Russian Sa-10/12/300/400/2500 around 100-250kg. I think Indian missile is heavier missile modeled on S-400 and should have warhead of 125-250kg

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Austin » 28 Jul 2008 12:13

Raj Malhotra wrote:for a 3000kg missile seems too small to me. I think Barak-1 has 20kg warhead, akash-55kg, PAC-3 around 78kg, Russian Sa-10/12/300/400/2500 around 100-250kg. I think Indian missile is heavier missile modeled on S-400 and should have warhead of 125-250kg


First thing first , the PAD is a HTK system , so a direct hit ( as it is designed for ) and the KE of that high closing speed should complete the job , so no need for warhead there.

If there is a warhead it may be just for secondary use ( perhaps some algo in the PAD may trigger in some rare circumstances of a very near miss or via command from LRTR )

Most of the missile you have mentioned except for PAC-3 are not HTK system so warhead serves the primary purpose there. ( PAC-3 is again a anti-aircraft and anti BM system (for ~ 1000 km range ) so a warhead may be useful in anti aircraft and anti cruise missile role , PAD is exclusive ABM stuff , the AAD on the contrary may carry a large warhead although it still is HTK , though it serves dual purpose of ABM and has anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile capability )

Arun i think the MIRV version of some future PAD will only be be effective in space to take care of decoys and warhead.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 28 Jul 2008 12:43

Even for a HTK system an explosive warhead is very desirable.
If the incoming missile has a seperating warhead which may be upto 10-20 meters away, the explosive will take care of the missile body while targeting the warhead or vice versa.
Secondly if a missile has multiple small bomblets or the warhead is protected by several decoys as it hurtles towards its target, an explosive warhead will save the day.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby geeth » 28 Jul 2008 15:23

What will be the effect on acceleration if you put a 150 KG warhead instead of 25 KG?

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby soutikghosh » 28 Jul 2008 16:26

Can someone please tell me, did IAF acquire some SPYDER AD missile system from Israel last year. If yes , how many ?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 28 Jul 2008 22:13

Austin wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:for a 3000kg missile seems too small to me. I think Barak-1 has 20kg warhead, akash-55kg, PAC-3 around 78kg, Russian Sa-10/12/300/400/2500 around 100-250kg. I think Indian missile is heavier missile modeled on S-400 and should have warhead of 125-250kg


First thing first , the PAD is a HTK system , so a direct hit ( as it is designed for ) and the KE of that high closing speed should complete the job , so no need for warhead there.

If there is a warhead it may be just for secondary use ( perhaps some algo in the PAD may trigger in some rare circumstances of a very near miss or via command from LRTR )

Most of the missile you have mentioned except for PAC-3 are not HTK system so warhead serves the primary purpose there. ( PAC-3 is again a anti-aircraft and anti BM system (for ~ 1000 km range ) so a warhead may be useful in anti aircraft and anti cruise missile role , PAD is exclusive ABM stuff , the AAD on the contrary may carry a large warhead although it still is HTK , though it serves dual purpose of ABM and has anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile capability )

Arun i think the MIRV version of some future PAD will only be be effective in space to take care of decoys and warhead.


My memory may be fading, can you provide pointers to PAD being a HTK design? IIRC the first test was a body hit, and exceeeded expectation beacuse the design is not HTK but will use explosives.

India is on the leading bleeding edge on ABM and cant be far behind what Unkill is going to procure from Lockheed / Raytheon. See below.

Lockheed and Raytheon Vie for MKV
Aviation Week & Space Technology 06/02/2008 ,

Amy Butler
Tucson, Ariz., and Washington

U.S. Missile Defense Agency wants a single booster to achieve multiple kills

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are taking very different design approaches as they compete to address the Missile Defense Agency’s growing concerns about tracking and destroying multiple targets, even decoys, lofted by ballistic missiles aimed at the U.S.

Intelligence officials are concerned that decoy technologies developed by the former Soviet Union and Russia have spread to would-be adversaries or could be duplicated by countries building up arsenals of ballistic missiles. Decoys can be as unsophisticated as metal fragments or balloons that are released along with a warhead when a ballistic missile’s nose cone opens up in flight. Or they can be more complicated and emulate the infrared signature of a ballistic missile or warhead. They are all designed to fool the MDA’s ground- and space-based sensor network as well as the infrared seekers on U.S. kill vehicles that are ultimately responsible for the endgame of a missile defense engagement.

The agency’s concerns are evident in its approach to flight testing as well as its plans to field a Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) system designed to achieve many target kills from a single interceptor. Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the MDA director, says the budding missile defense system will more aggressively incorporate decoys into flight tests. The agency has also embarked on a new line of missiles acting as targets for its interceptors; these new targets will more accurately emulate the kinds of decoys and countermeasures expected in the coming years, and they will begin to be used in flight tests later this year.

Engagement by the MKV-Rs, made by Raytheon, would be prioritized by the first MKV to separate from the booster. Raytheon’s individual kill vehicles are larger than Lockheed Martin’s, which rely on a central carrier vehicle for much of the deployment.Credit: RAYTHEON CONCEPT

The real game changer for MDA, though, will be to fulfill its goal of tipping its entire fleet of midcourse interceptors—the Navy’s sea-based SM-3 Block IIB and mobile, land-based Kinetic Energy Interceptor, or KEI (both in development), as well as the silo-house Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs)—with an MKV system.

This program is designed to regain “numerical parity” between the number of potential targets per hostile launch and the number of interceptors needed to destroy them, says Tory Bruno, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of strategic and missile defense systems in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“If [an enemy] put up one warhead and four decoys—that’s five objects. Typically, if you are using a unitary kill vehicle, you are committing one to two interceptors per object that you had to destroy,” Bruno says. “All of a sudden you went from committing one to two interceptors to having to commit five or 10 for an assured kill. . . . It is a huge multiplier of cost.”

Although North Korea professes a willingness to stem its efforts to field more nuclear weapons, the U.S. intelligence community isn’t banking on the threat disappearing. Pyongyang was allegedly involved in the construction of a nuclear weapons facility being built in Syria. An Israeli raid leveled the site last year. U.S. officials are also concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile ambitions. And, in the meantime, Russia’s stance has become more bellicose, including frequent bomber incursions near European and U.S. borders. Additionally, China’s ballistic missile arsenal is growing.

Lockheed Martin’s system deploys with the MKV-Ls lashed in a bandolier around its central carrier vehicle. A large focal plane array will be used by the carrier vehicle to guide the system as close to its targets as possible before deploying the bread-loaf-size MKV-Ls in the endgame. The number of MKV-Ls on each carrier vehicle would be dictated by which booster is used and the amount of speed and range needed to reach the target.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN CONCEPT

Having learned from efforts that reached too far for cutting-edge technologies, the MDA is taking a methodical approach toward fielding an MKV that relies as much as possible on fielded technologies. The MKV grew out of an effort years ago to develop miniature kill vehicle technologies; but the agency shifted its focus. “We found that we could fly technologies that were existing in our Thaad [Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense] or EKV [Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle] or our SM-3 [Standard Missile‑3] programs,” says Richard Matlock, director for ballistic missile defense kill vehicles. Those technologies are being incorporated to field a midcourse MKV capability.

The MDA conducted a competition and selected Lockheed Martin as its single MKV contractor. Raytheon was among the losers of that effort. However, Raytheon managed to turn around its loss and was last year brought back into the program under the Pentagon’s new effort to develop as many mature prototype designs as possible as a risk-reduction measure. The two contractors are now in a head-to-head competition.

Smarting from its loss, Raytheon has changed its design approach wholesale. “We had a larger and heavier kill vehicle than our competitor,” says Kathrin Kjos, Raytheon program manager for kill vehicles, speaking about Raytheon’s original design. “The risk of getting to our flight test was . . . thought to be higher.” Raytheon’s earlier concept relied on the availability of a liquid propellant that would be safe for shipboard use, an advantage if the MDA were to migrate toward more sea-based missile defense options. Yet, it was not mature for use, and the company was thought to be reaching too far for new technologies. “It was an idea before its time,” says Franklin Wyatt, vice president of Raytheon Naval Weapon Systems.

The number of Raytheon MKV-Rs available for each mission is dictated by the amount of space and weight allotted in a booster’s nose cone. The Missile Defense Agency is exploring whether a blunter nose cone for future systems can maximize the number of MKV-Rs on each booster without decreasing the speed and range performance of the interceptors.Credit: RAYTHEON CONCEPT

After the loss and before being welcomed back into MDA’s program, Raytheon turned to focusing on commonality and producibility. The company drew lessons from its work manufacturing the agency’s Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (used in conjunction with the Ground-Based Interceptors) and the SM-3. This EKV is manufactured in Tucson. “We really started an internally funded effort to develop a common kill vehicle architecture that will allow us to really focus on getting—where it is appropriate—to have common architecture, common components and common processes and common software,” says Kjos.

Raytheon’s design concept today maximizes that commonality. Each kill vehicle for its MKV-R will be exactly the same, containing the same sensors, data links, software and propulsion systems. To manage the endgame scenario, the first MKV-R ejected from the booster—Kjos calls this the “first born”—would become the engagement management vehicle, directing each of the other MKV-Rs to their targets through bent-pipe data links.

This approach simplifies the onboard systems, including the infrared seeker used to guide the MKV-Rs to their targets. But, it relies heavily on the MDA’s burgeoning sensor architecture to get the small MKV-Rs close enough to their targets to engage. While still attached to the booster, the MKV-Rs would receive the latest assessment of the threat from MDA’s X-band radar sensors (including the massive Sea-Based X-Band Radar) and from space-based systems such as the Space Tracking and Surveillance System satellites that are to be launched this year. As the first MKV-R off the booster, that vehicle will perform a quick assessment, either validating the threat data from ground- and space-based sensors or changing the priorities based on the data it’s receiving from its own IR seeker.

“There are some things that the ground might see, and when we look at it we can tell that it is not a threat,” says Kjos. “Then, it can quickly discount those and reassign that kill vehicle to something that looks more like a threat.”

The engagement management vehicle can also assign two other MKVs if a particular threat looks lethal. The engagement management vehicle would be the last to engage a target. And it would provide last-minute damage assessment of the mission back to the ground.

Six MKV‑Rs are configuredatop a booster in a pointed nose cone shaped for higher speed.Credit: RAYTHEON CONCEPT

The software that would control these processes will be uploaded into each MKV-R on a mission. If the first vehicle off the booster is malfunctioning, Kjos says a second would step in and take over the engagement management role. “We are looking for simplicity here. And, we are looking for no single-point failures,” says Kjos. “We’ve made all of our kill vehicles like our unitary kill vehicles. They do all those functions that a unitary does. What we’ve added is software that coordinates those kill vehicles.”

Although Raytheon’s design isn’t yet complete, the MKV-R’s propulsion system would notionally be about 10 in. in diameter and about 18 in. long. Its seeker head would be about 6 in. in diameter. The same kill vehicles would be used on each MDA booster—fitting on the GBI, KEI and SM-3 Block IIB (only the larger, 21-in.-dia. SM-3 variant is expected to carry the MKV system).

“One of the things about having a payload where they are all the same is that we can [tailor] the weight of that payload by having more or fewer [MKV-Rs] on there,” Kjos says.

Lockheed Martin—which has been the MDA’s constant MKV-L developer—has a different approach. Its design relies on a carrier vehicle (CV), a larger system with its own divert, attitude control and propulsion capabilities that would carry smaller kill vehicles. The CV would use a yet-to-be proven IR focal plane array (see p. 50) to direct its bevy of KVs toward the targets and eject them for the engagement. With Lockheed Martin’s design, the CVs and smaller MKV-Ls would be standard, adapting to the three boosters with specialized collars. The CV would then prioritize the targets during the engagement, directing the MKVs to their destinations.

Lockheed Martin’s design still relies somewhat on miniaturization for success. Because its CV will consume some space and mass inside the nose cone of the booster, its MKV-Ls must be smaller. The tradeoff is that the CV will have an improved onboard IR seeker for better guidance during the engagement, but the individual MKV-Ls will have less onboard fuel and range once ejected from the CV for a kill. Though the actual size is classified, Bruno acknowledged the individual MKV‑Ls are about the size of a bread loaf.

The CV’s advanced sensor “will bring us closer into the zone” where the MKV‑Ls can deploy, says Bruno.

Already, Lockheed Martin has constructed a prototype of its CV’s propulsion system, and the team conducted a static-fire test last summer. A hover test for the prototype is expected this fall. Pratt & Whitney is handling propulsion systems for the CVs, with Aerojet building them for the MKV-Ls.

Matlock says the MDA is incorporating as much component and system testing into the program as possible and will measure contractors’ performance via “knowledge points,” which are proven through demonstrations. “We’ve forced them to do ground testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing, to make sure that it will work,” he says. “We are buying these knowledge points.”

Because Raytheon hasn’t received consistent government funding for its design, Matlock acknowledges that its effort is “a little bit behind in terms of defining the program for us.” A system requirements review is slated for next spring.

Meanwhile, this summer the MDA will be studying how to integrate the MKV systems onto the three candidate boosters. The GBI, which is already fielded in small numbers in Alaska and California, is likely be the first to fly an MKV system. There are a couple of advantages to its being the first.

Because it’s based farthest from the targets, the GBI has the most time to engage once a missile launch has been detected and therefore relies the least on speed to accomplish a kill. So, engineers can experiment with how many MKVs with which to tip the interceptor and glean more knowledge through the longer kill chain.

Matlock hopes to conduct a flight test of an instrumented mass-representative mockup MKV system on GBI as soon as 2012, with end-to-end flight testing completed no later than 2017. “That would give us in mid-decade a capability for multiple kill vehicles on these midcourse interceptors,” he says. This dovetails with the period during which intelligence officials are worried that ballistic missiles with more advanced countermeasures could be used more widely.

Notional plans call for 10-20 MKVs per GBI, says Matlock. About one-half to two-thirds of that number would fit atop the KEI and up to five MKVs are expected to go on the 21-in.-dia. SM-3 Block IIB.

The KEI isn’t yet mature, and that system is designed solely to rely on speed to reach its target. Thus, it may be more sensitive to the added weight of many MKVs.

The Missile Defense Agency expects to spend more than $3 billion developing MKV technologies through 2015. Congress, as with most missile defense programs, is skeptical and has proposed reductions. The agency has asked for $344.2 million for the MKV program in Fiscal 2009, but lawmakers are stressing near-term missile defense needs—including a call for additional Thaad and SM‑3 interceptors—over long-term goals. The House Armed Services Committee is proposing that the chamber cut $100 million from the request, while Senate counterparts are suggesting a $50-million reduction. The House started to consider its defense authorization late last month, but no changes from its language were expected for the MKV.


p_saggu wrote:Even for a HTK system an explosive warhead is very desirable.
If the incoming missile has a seperating warhead which may be upto 10-20 meters away, the explosive will take care of the missile body while targeting the warhead or vice versa.

Missiles are not designed for happenstance. Why only 10-20 meter and not more? I don't agree w/the above.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 28 Jul 2008 22:30

You are confusing PAC-3 with SM series. PAC-3 is 20km range missile with a heavy warhead for its size. ALL hit to kill missiles which intercept in or near atmosphere (i.e. explosion should not send fragments into orbit) have heavy explosive warheads without exception

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sunilUpa » 28 Jul 2008 22:47

Raj Malhotra wrote:You are confusing PAC-3 with SM series. PAC-3 is 20km range missile with a heavy warhead for its size. ALL hit to kill missiles which intercept in or near atmosphere (i.e. explosion should not send fragments into orbit) have heavy explosive warheads without exception


I am confused onlee...SM3 has a explosive warhead with HTK? What's the use. (HTK misses, warhead explodes arguement doesn't hold any water, if HTK misses, it will be past the target, exploding warhead is useless)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Austin » 28 Jul 2008 23:08

Arun_S wrote:My memory may be fading, can you provide pointers to PAD being a HTK design? IIRC the first test was a body hit, and exceeeded expectation beacuse the design is not HTK but will use explosives.


depends on how the jurnos have interpreted it , there happens to be reference of PAD being HTK to BM being killed by direct hit.

So now it appears the Kill by Hit is an "exceeded expectation" and not by design.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 28 Jul 2008 23:34

I think we all are getting confused with terminology here.

Within or near space - ALL missiles have explosive warheads. HTK is a desirable trait to maximise effect. Explosive warhead is desirable for completely destroying the missile even if they are HTK. Therefore looking at size of Indian missiles and worldwide trend the missiles would have heavy warhead especially when AAD is supposed to be SSM in secondary role.

for IN SPACE interception- like Thad or SM-IV ONLY HTK is used as explosion will send huge amount of fragments in space /orbit destroying your own satellites, BMs and polluting space for ever. Futher fragments of destroyed BM or even tumbling BM will burn up on re-entry completely destroying itself, so again explosion is not needed.

AAD & PAD both seem to have explosive warheads. While future ABM missiles for engaging longer range BMs will perhaps be only HTK.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 28 Jul 2008 23:42

sunilUpa wrote:I am confused onlee...SM3 has a explosive warhead with HTK? What's the use. (HTK misses, warhead explodes arguement doesn't hold any water, if HTK misses, it will be past the target, exploding warhead is useless)

Not correct.
When onboard motor impulse is not enough to converge on constantly updated target vector, (sensors and CPU can predict miss happening, because there is no oomph left in motor), then use shape charge (like a lasso) to get the target.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 28 Jul 2008 23:46

Raj Malhotra wrote:for IN SPACE interception- like Thad or SM-IV ONLY HTK is used as explosion will send huge amount of fragments in space /orbit destroying your own satellites, BMs and polluting space for ever.

Yes and No.
Yes explosive will generate some % particles that are above orbit speed, but almost all of those are at wrong angle, thus will re-enter atmosphere on their next pass around their perigee.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jul 2008 00:19

Generally speaking what is the max ceiling where explosive warhead can be used without fragments going into long orbits? 80km?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sunilUpa » 29 Jul 2008 00:37

Arun_S wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:I am confused onlee...SM3 has a explosive warhead with HTK? What's the use. (HTK misses, warhead explodes arguement doesn't hold any water, if HTK misses, it will be past the target, exploding warhead is useless)

Not correct.
When onboard motor impulse is not enough to converge on constantly updated target vector, (sensors and CPU can predict miss happening, because there is no oomph left in motor), then use shape charge (like a lasso) to get the target.

Ah thanks.

BTW, OT..

SM3 is hardwired not to go after satellites. In the recent satellite shootdown, 2 kill vehicles were reconfigured to hit the satellite.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby andy B » 29 Jul 2008 05:17

On the discussion of exploding warheads and ASAT missiles. There have been reports that the chinese test has left a lot more debris in the region where the chinese old weather satellite was in orbit.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1790313/posts

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby asbchakri » 01 Aug 2008 09:50

[quote="sunilUpa"]India to test 'interceptor' missile again

Per the above report we were to test the missile this week or so, can anyone know the exact date of when it is to be tested. :)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10086
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sum » 01 Aug 2008 10:47

What happened to the Astra testing?
wasnt it supposed to have been done in July end ?

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby narayana » 01 Aug 2008 19:51

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 316067.cms

Same old news on a new date :(

"We are very close to the launch of the under water version and the Navy had to get ready the requisite platform for the testing," he said.


For air version, the development systems were ready and the integrated test would be undertaken after mock firing.

However, the launch of air version and commercial production would take some time as certain structural modifications were to be made in the Russian-built Sukhoi aircraft.


He said the company would also take up BrahMos II project under a major expansion programme to produce hypersonic missiles that could cruise at speeds of 5-7 Mach. The present versions travels at a speed of 2.8 Mach, (1 Mach is referred to the velocity of sound), Pillai, who was here to address students of various colleges, said.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3430
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby rsingh » 02 Aug 2008 19:46

What happened to the Astra testing?
wasnt it supposed to have been done in July end ?


We have to go to NSG and congress ......we do not want stirr the murky water at this moment do we?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17024
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 02 Aug 2008 19:55

rsingh wrote:
What happened to the Astra testing?
wasnt it supposed to have been done in July end ?


We have to go to NSG and congress ......we do not want stirr the murky water at this moment do we?

astra has nothing to do with nsg or congress. why draw political angles at each and every corner ?
anyway, I don't remember a single instance when a missile test in India has taken place on a pre declared date. could be any # of reasons, even weather conditions. FWIW, it has been stormy in the BoB area recently.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Nayak » 03 Aug 2008 11:32

India to acquire undersea cruise missiles


Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, August 03, 2008
First Published: 10:06 IST(3/8/2008)
Last Updated: 10:08 IST(3/8/2008)



Print



India is on the verge of acquiring new undersea launched cruise missiles which will give it capability to strike at targets on land even when the vessel is far from the shore.

The Club-S cruise missiles will come armed in early August on Indian Navy's newly upgraded Kilo-class submarine INS Sindhuvijay, according to Naval sources here.

Sindhuvijay will be the first of Kilo-class submarines to be fitted with this land attack version of the high-technology Club-S cruise missile, which has a range of 275 nautical miles.

"The high-precision missile can be launched from standard torpedo tubes from a depth of 35 to 40 metres," a source said.

Sindhuvijay is the fourth Indian Navy Kilo-class submarine that has been overhauled at Zvezdochka shipyard in northern Russia. Besides the land attack version, the submarines are armed with 3M-54EI anti-ship cruise missiles.

Labelled by NATO as one of the quietest submarines in the world, the upgraded Kilo-class vessels have undergone extensive changes in the hull along with acquiring improved control systems, sonars, new electronic warfare systems and an integrated weapon control system.

The Club-S missiles are highly sophisticated weapons still under development in Russia. They are also simultaneously being fitted in the new series of Russian submarines.

The Indian Navy signed a 80 million dollar contract with Russia in 2001 to retrofit its entire fleet of ten Kilo-class submarines to enable them to fire the Club-S missiles.

India is also asking the Russians to change the design of Kilo-class submarines to undertake test firing of its indigenous undersea launched supersonic Brahmos cruise missile.

Sindhuvijay was scheduled to be delivered in December last year but India and Russia got into a spat as the Indian Navy refused to take possession of the retrofitted submarines as the new cruise missiles failed to find their targets in six consecutive test firings in September and November.

"But extensive new trials conducted in mid-July were perfect," a Russian source said. Naval officials said here that the missiles were ready for induction.

Naval experts have described the Club-S missiles as "the most versatile weapons" with capabilities of both swimming out of the sea and vertical launch.

The new missiles use an ARGS-5 active radar seeker, new Russian Glosnass satellite and inertial guidance.

Naval sources said the Sindhuvijay will start sailing from the Russian shipyard located close to the White sea on August 5 and dock at Western Naval Command base in Mumbai a week later.

Russia Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines have become part of navies in India, China, Iran, Poland and Algeria.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby andy B » 04 Aug 2008 06:09

Rahul M wrote:
rsingh wrote:
What happened to the Astra testing?
wasnt it supposed to have been done in July end ?


We have to go to NSG and congress ......we do not want stirr the murky water at this moment do we?

astra has nothing to do with nsg or congress. why draw political angles at each and every corner ?
anyway, I don't remember a single instance when a missile test in India has taken place on a pre declared date. could be any # of reasons, even weather conditions. FWIW, it has been stormy in the BoB area recently.



You are absolutely right Rahul, I saw a documentary some time back on the THAAD testing and they had to wait to clear weather in order to record correct telemetric data. Dang weather migh well be messin up our testing.... :evil: :evil: :evil:

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby K Mehta » 04 Aug 2008 09:59

Comparing the Nag and the Akash configurations throws up an anomaly.
Nag is still mounted on a BMP-2 based carrier while Akash needs to tested on a T-72 chasis.
I find it a bit strange that an anti-tank missile carrier which will be travelling along with the tanks be made up of BMP while a medium range SAM needs to be mounted on a T-72 chasis. Though it can trail a bit and yet be effective.

Question to gurus
Is there a role difference or am I missing something? Do Anti-tank missile carriers trail the tank attack column or are kept for purely defensive posture?
JMTs etc

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Sanjay » 04 Aug 2008 14:45

The new issue of Force magazine apparently has some info on UAVs, Brahmos and Astra. Anyone have the full articles so that the gist of them could be shared ?

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6999
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Anujan » 05 Aug 2008 00:43

K Mehta wrote:Comparing the Nag and the Akash configurations throws up an anomaly.
Nag is still mounted on a BMP-2 based carrier while Akash needs to tested on a T-72 chasis.
I find it a bit strange that an anti-tank missile carrier which will be travelling along with the tanks be made up of BMP while a medium range SAM needs to be mounted on a T-72 chasis. Though it can trail a bit and yet be effective.

Question to gurus
Is there a role difference or am I missing something? Do Anti-tank missile carriers trail the tank attack column or are kept for purely defensive posture?
JMTs etc


IIRC,
More NAG rounds are carried inside the BMP-2 and one of the brag points is reloading NAMICA without the crew getting exposed. Akash is to big to be stored inside the BMP2 anyway and is probably reloaded using a resupply vehicle. This might be a factor in using the BMP-2 for NAMICA.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4489
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby putnanja » 06 Aug 2008 00:43

Nag missile testfired

Nag missile testfired

It achieved the maximum range and was bang on target

— Photo: File picture

The anti-tank ‘Nag’ missile on display at the Research Centre Imarat in Hyderabad.

HYDERABAD: The third generation hit-to-kill anti-tank missile, Nag, was successfully testfired at Pokhran in Rajasthan on Tuesday. The advanced weapon system damaged the target, a stationary tank four km away.

Talking to The Hindu from the launch site, Nag’s project director S.S. Mishra said the missile achieved the maximum range and was bang on target. “We got the bull’s eye,” he said after the missile was launched around 1.20 pm. The test-firing was preceded in the last few days by pre-launch transportation trials in the desert terrain “with full combat load.”

Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), P. Venugopalan said all the mission objectives were met during the testfiring he described as the “last developmental trial.” He said the changes wanted by the user were incorporated in the missile which could be operated both during the day and night. He said the user trial would be conducted in a couple of months.

S.K. Chaudhuri, associate director, Research Centre Imarat (a key laboratory of the DRDO’s missile complex) and chairman of the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for the trial, said the missile proved the capability for “highest technology in seeker and control guidance system.” Equipped with Imaging Infrared Seeker and lock-on-after-launch capability, and carrying a real warhead, it was fired from Namica, a dedicated missile carrier.

Within 21 seconds of its launch, it homed in on the target and with the help of a “precursor charge” created a huge hole on the tank, demonstrating its “top attack” capability. Soon after the precursor charge made a hole, the main warhead zoomed into the tank and exploded, causing damage to the derelict vehicle.

The indigenously-developed Nag is a two-stage solid propellant missile and each Namica carries 12 missiles with eight of them in ready-to-fire mode.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Baljeet » 06 Aug 2008 01:50

Ravi
Nice find. Lets wait and see till IA comes out and trashes Nag.
1. 4km range is not accepted, it is below standard.
2. New GSQR says missile must travel 10kms before hitting the target
3. Not at par with Western Missiles, float a tender to get 5000 Milans.
4. This was a test not trial. Missile didn't work in Army trials.
5. We will not go to war with this missile.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 06 Aug 2008 02:25

Wow we've developed a "Hit to Kill" anti tank mijjile it seems according to this DDM.
Two staged missile? Surely he means a Tandem warhead.
:rotfl:

And new gyaan. 8 ready to fire with 4 reloads inside.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Misraji » 06 Aug 2008 04:01

Baljeet wrote:Ravi
Nice find. Lets wait and see till IA comes out and trashes Nag.
1. 4km range is not accepted, it is below standard.
2. New GSQR says missile must travel 10kms before hitting the target
3. Not at par with Western Missiles, float a tender to get 5000 Milans.
4. This was a test not trial. Missile didn't work in Army trials.
5. We will not go to war with this missile.


Things are not that black, Sir.

If IA can be blame for stalling, we jingoes can also be blamed for whining too much ... :)

So lets wait till we hear some more, shall we??

Regards,
Ashish

PS "Hit to kill" anti-tank mijjile ... That's a new one ... Gotto remember that one ...... :mrgreen:

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 06 Aug 2008 04:29

Dear Webmasters / Arun-ji,
There is no Nag Missile page in the missiles section. Also the link to the Agni IV is not working.
I notice that wikipedia also has links to BR's missile page in several missiles (Even the AAD and PAD sections in wiki). It would be good if the links on BR are up and working.
I can help in proof-reading any material that you plan to put up. (Technical details will have to be done at your end)
Regards

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby JaiS » 06 Aug 2008 05:06

Indian army orders additional BrahMos cruise missiles

NEW DELHI, August 5 (RIA Novosti) - The Indian army has ordered an additional batch of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles from the Russian-Indian BrahMos Aerospace joint venture, the company's CEO said Tuesday.

"The army leadership realizes that weaponry such as the BrahMos missiles will ensure victory to the country which posses it in any conflict," Sivathanu Pillai, who is also the managing director of BrahMos Aerospace, said without disclosing the exact size of the order.

Pillai said the recent acquisition of an assembly plant in the state of Kerala from Kerala Hightech Industries Ltd in addition to the main plant in Hyderabad, would allow the company to increase production to 50 BrahMos missiles a year and fulfill the army orders on schedule.

Pillai said in June that the company had finished the development of the airborne version of the BrahMos missile and the Indian air force had chosen SU-30 MKI Flanker-H multirole fighter as a trial platform for the missile.

Experts estimate that India could purchase up to 1,000 BrahMos missiles for its armed forces in the next decade, and export 2,000 to other countries during the same period.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kakarat » 06 Aug 2008 16:50

Nag anti-Tank Missile demonstrated to Indian Army

India successfully flight tested 3rd generation, Fire and Forget Anti Tank Guided Missile NAG with a range of 4 Km on stationary and moving targets in the presence of users on 5th and 6th August 2008 at Pokhran Ranges. Both targets hit confirming the system capabilities of the NAG Missile.

Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller, DRDO and Chairman, IGMDP expressing happiness on the last milestone of the programme confirmed that for the first time, Users have witnessed the flight tests of production version of NAG Missile Carrier NAMICA from BEL and Missiles from BDL. NAG Missile has both top and front attack capability and having passive homing guidance achieved through Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker system and is unique in the world with such capabilities. Many SMEs have participated in the development and of NAG Missile system.

These tests were specially meant to demonstrate the tandem warhead against both stationary and moving targets. With these trials, the development flights stand completed and NAG system is now ready for user trials. The mobility in desert terrain has also been comprehensively demonstrated. “I am sure this will pave the way for induction of NAG with the Army”, commented one of the media persons present there.

Director DRDL, Project Director NAG, ADG Mechanised Forces, Army Officers, DRDO Scientists and others participated in the campaign.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5158
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby jamwal » 06 Aug 2008 17:28

Pardon me guru jees, but when'll we have tests of nag against moving targets? Also can Nag/Helina be used from fighter planes??

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 900
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Nitesh » 06 Aug 2008 17:31

jamwal wrote:Pardon me guru jees, but when'll we have tests of nag against moving targets? Also can Nag/Helina be used from fighter planes??

Jamwal sahab check the news just posted above your post by kakarat, any way check this from the post above:
India successfully flight tested 3rd generation, Fire and Forget Anti Tank Guided Missile NAG with a range of 4 Km on stationary and moving targets in the presence of users on 5th and 6th August 2008 at Pokhran Ranges. Both targets hit confirming the system capabilities of the NAG Missile.


Seems like IIR issue is also solved
NAG Missile has both top and front attack capability and having passive homing guidance achieved through Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker system and is unique in the world with such capabilities. Many SMEs have participated in the development and of NAG Missile system.

kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby kvraghavaiah » 06 Aug 2008 17:37

Nitesh wrote:
jamwal wrote:Pardon me guru jees, but when'll we have tests of nag against moving targets? Also can Nag/Helina be used from fighter planes??

Jamwal sahab check the news just posted above your post by kakarat, any way check this from the post above:
India successfully flight tested 3rd generation, Fire and Forget Anti Tank Guided Missile NAG with a range of 4 Km on stationary and moving targets in the presence of users on 5th and 6th August 2008 at Pokhran Ranges. Both targets hit confirming the system capabilities of the NAG Missile.


Seems like IIR issue is also solved
NAG Missile has both top and front attack capability and having passive homing guidance achieved through Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker system and is unique in the world with such capabilities. Many SMEs have participated in the development and of NAG Missile system.

No. IIR did not have issue at all except that DRDO was trying to yet reduce its size. the issue is with millimetric wave radar, not with infrared imaging radar. MMWR is more all environment capable sensor than IIR.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 900
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Nitesh » 06 Aug 2008 17:40

No. IIR did not have issue at all except that DRDO was trying to yet reduce its size. the issue is with millimetric wave radar, not with infrared imaging radar. MMWR is more all environment capable sensor than IIR.


Thanks for the correction, but still good achievement indeed. I seriously hope army does not make this as an issue to stop induction.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17024
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2008 17:53

jamwal wrote:Pardon me guru jees, but when'll we have tests of nag against moving targets? Also can Nag/Helina be used from fighter planes??

there is no reason why the air launched version can't be mated to fighters but IAF hasn't shown any interest in this regard till date. may be that will be done if the Helina lives upto its expectations.
Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.
incidentally, just yesterday I saw a pic of harriers with hellfires @ keypubs:
http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... re1oh5.jpg
image courtesy tbzz

the sure shot candidates for HELINA currently are the WSI dhruvs for IA (out of news for eternity) and the LCH for IAF.

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby SaiK » 06 Aug 2008 17:54

IA will wait until nag smashes a moving tank at 45kmph in a cold fog filled winter morning at pokhran., to say anything to even start with some negatives., like it lacks 6-8km range, missing target tolerance, namica delivery multi target acquisition and locks [want all the 12 nags in it to "hit to kill" :mrgreen: ] 12 al khaleed look alike perhaps with a test jig made of kanchan armor.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests