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.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4002
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby kit » 03 Sep 2008 09:54

Hi Arun,
Just one question.If those 'enlightened' ones at NSG say that we ll have the deal if India forgoes the right to test and agrees to the rest , should India say yes or nyet :).Personally I would tell them to go to .. well whatever

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 » 03 Sep 2008 10:44

Dont want to make this thread a nuclear weapons thread, except for in peripherary question/discussion. So let me sum up.
ranganathan wrote:What about the boosted fission devices? Do they work or were they also duds?

In my person perspective Pok-II showed Indian mastery of Boosted fission weapon, and all things fission. The 17Kt Boosted primary of S1 worked perfectly. Wish they had tested a higher yield boosted device as insurance, and India will would today have upper hand in the international negotiations. I am sure they can make 100kt or 150kt weapon, but without demonstrated test or LIF the claim is as valid as claiming 700kt boosted fission weapon.

Raj Malhotra wrote:What is your peronal estimate of yields of PoK-2? There seems to be veiw on Board, perhaps misunderstood by me:-

pok-2-S1-Thermo Nuclear-25kt
pok-2-S2-Fission Bomb-25kt

My understanding is :
    PokII -S1-Thermo Nuclear: 28kt
    PokII -S2-Fission Bomb: 12kt
kit wrote:Just one question.If those 'enlightened' ones at NSG say that we ll have the deal if India forgoes the right to test and agrees to the rest , should India say yes or nyet :).Personally I would tell them to go to .. well whatever

Try better luck at Las Vegas or make Tiger eat grass.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramdas » 03 Sep 2008 17:05

As far as I can understand, except NPAs everbody incl PKI et. al say

S-1 40-45kt
S-2 12 kt

Other than NPA's everybody accepted the DAE figure for the yield of these devices. So where did 28kt come from ?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7397
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby disha » 03 Sep 2008 18:14

ramdas wrote:As far as I can understand, except NPAs everbody incl PKI et. al say

S-1 40-45kt
S-2 12 kt

Other than NPA's everybody accepted the DAE figure for the yield of these devices. So where did 28kt come from ?


Gentle reminder folks, this is not the thread to discuss the above. And breaking my own rule below ...

ranganathan wrote:What about the boosted fission devices? Do they work or were they also duds?


So what if they were duds? Also while you are at it, can you ponder over what damage a 300 KT can do which a 150 KT or 15 KT cannot? Again this is in Nuke thread.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 03 Sep 2008 19:02

BRM and wikepedia both mentions the yields of S1 as:

1) Primary - 15 KT.
2) Secondary - 30 KT.

So Indian thermonuclear weapon produced 45 KT. First and last OT post from side.

Cheers...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 03 Sep 2008 19:19

guys,
as Arun ji has already indicated, this thread is not for discussion of India's nuke warhead options.
This is a very sensitive topic and if you absolutely want to discuss it please do it elsewhere.
in the absence of a specific thread for the topic, I suggest the "Military Miscellaneous Posts and Discussions Thread".
thanks for cooperating,
Rahul.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby A Sharma » 04 Sep 2008 15:49

Missile Defence shield to be tested in November

Plans are afoot to test India's missile defence shield in November, Dr V K Saraswat, leading scientist at DRDO, said today.

"We are planning to test the missile defence shield in November. This time the configuration will be different. We will be approaching a higher altitude kill compared to last time's kill at 48 km," Saraswat who is the Chief Controller of Research and Decvelopment (MSS), DRDO told reporters today on the sidelines of a seminar organised on the topic `IT in Defence.'

There were also plans to enter the flight trial stage late next year for 'A-5,' the long range missile. It will be at a higher range than the Agni III, he said.

Refusing to divulge the range of the missile, he said, "It was commensurate in keeping with threat to the region."

Replying to a question on Astra missile, the indigenously built air-to-air beyond visual range missile, he said that the missile was under completion and between September 10-15 there were plans to have a "launch window for guided flights."

On the issue of the indigenously developed surface-to-air Akash missile, he said production of the Akash missile had commenced with the Indian Airforce placing orders for it.

The naval Long Range Sam (LR-SAM) is expected to enter its flight trial phase probably next year, he said

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby asbchakri » 04 Sep 2008 16:11

A Sharma wrote:Missile Defence shield to be tested in November

Plans are afoot to test India's missile defence shield in November, Dr V K Saraswat, leading scientist at DRDO, said today.

"We are planning to test the missile defence shield in November. This time the configuration will be different. We will be approaching a higher altitude kill compared to last time's kill at 48 km," Saraswat who is the Chief Controller of Research and Decvelopment (MSS), DRDO told reporters today on the sidelines of a seminar organised on the topic `IT in Defence.'

There were also plans to enter the flight trial stage late next year for 'A-5,' the long range missile. It will be at a higher range than the Agni III, he said.

Refusing to divulge the range of the missile, he said, "It was commensurate in keeping with threat to the region."

Replying to a question on Astra missile, the indigenously built air-to-air beyond visual range missile, he said that the missile was under completion and between September 10-15 there were plans to have a "launch window for guided flights."

On the issue of the indigenously developed surface-to-air Akash missile, he said production of the Akash missile had commenced with the Indian Airforce placing orders for it.


The naval Long Range Sam (LR-SAM) is expected to enter its flight trial phase probably next year, he said


Will it be at 80 KM or 100 KM. I think there was a talsk about a 100KM interception before. Can any one have any idea or info on that?? And also r we using Prithvi as Target or Agni-1 this time :)

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 » 04 Sep 2008 19:29

Prithvi target missile (different from Prithvi with 1000 Kg payload) is capable of simulating missile with range of 600-900Km and upto 1,200Km with little modification). This test will use Prithvi target missile.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Sid » 04 Sep 2008 19:51

Arun_S wrote:Prithvi target missile (different from Prithvi with 1000 Kg payload) is capable of simulating missile with range of 600-900Km and upto 1,200Km with little modification). This test will use Prithvi target missile.


There was some discussion on BR or some other forum (i cant remember) about kill efficiency of such BMD systems. It was said that PAC system's main failure was its inability to destroy the warhead. Instead it used to deflect or damage the missile like something.

Does our BMD take a different path? Because if we intercept a BM over a city with 100kt power and fails to destroy the warhead, it wont make a difference as it will just fall to point B instead of A.

Is a fragmentation warhead enough to destroy a incoming BM's payload? Or we need something more to cripple/fry its electronics?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Katare » 04 Sep 2008 20:32

Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?

I think if missile is intercepted at too low an altitude than there is not enough time for major debris to burn completely. Also everything would fall within/close to target area. But at 48-70Km altitude hardly anything would make it to ground.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Sid » 04 Sep 2008 20:51

Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?

I think if missile is intercepted at too low an altitude than there is not enough time for major debris to burn completely. Also everything would fall within/close to target area. But at 48-70Km altitude hardly anything would make it to ground.


Payload might burn only for ICMB or IRBM types which have re-entry vehicles. But in case of SRBM payload has shallower re-entry course (which have higher chances of carrying tactical nukes with low yields).

And when we say hit-to-hill ABM, does it actually collides head-on or explodes in proximity.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 21:28

Sid, The impact of hit to kill vehicle destroys the incoming very throughly. The PAD HTK payload is the key achievement and is very laudable. The sxith country syndrome(*) has been broken. Now to minaturise it to improve the launch vehicle efficiency.

Let me elaboarte. In current config one launch vehicle is needed for one incoming. So if the otherside uses many incoming, then they can saturate the defenses. With mulitiple HTKs on single launncher the defending side regains some advantage.


* Kalam used to say that he wants the sixth country syndrome to be broken- India is the sixth country to do this or that after every announcement of technological progress.

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 04 Sep 2008 21:34

This one question I have wanted to ask for sometime now.
We know that all P5 deploy nuclear warheads which deploy "safe" explosives, in addition to other measures which would make accidental detonation (and perhaps damage too) difficult. The US scientists have claimed that their nuclear weapons could survive a major fire and not go off because of those "safe"explosives.
Other than a direct hit on a warhead, or a very close explosion, is it not possible that a nuclear warhead may actually survive a BMD intervention?
Off topic, India is reasonably advanced in explosives tech. Would it be correct to assume we also deploy such safe explosives and other point safe measures on weapons that we develop? Any info if such measures were incorporated in designs tested in POK 2?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartik » 04 Sep 2008 21:37

Ramana, how will it be that a single PAD interceptor missile with a HTK warhead will take down multiple BMs? are you talking of further development where there will be multiple HTK warheads on the PAD interceptor that will target individual BMs that may be at wide separations and different altitudes ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 21:57

The latter.

are you talking of further development where there will be multiple HTK warheads on the PAD interceptor that will target individual BMs that may be at wide separations and different altitudes ?


I was thinking such HTK vehicles can be packaged on other launchers if needed to improve the defending sides efficiency.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Katare » 04 Sep 2008 22:19

Sid wrote:
Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?

I think if missile is intercepted at too low an altitude than there is not enough time for major debris to burn completely. Also everything would fall within/close to target area. But at 48-70Km altitude hardly anything would make it to ground.


Payload might burn only for ICMB or IRBM types which have re-entry vehicles. But in case of SRBM payload has shallower re-entry course (which have higher chances of carrying tactical nukes with low yields).

And when we say hit-to-hill ABM, does it actually collides head-on or explodes in proximity.


I think as soon as you deflect (uncontrolled deflection) missile with any outside force the missile will spin and disintegrate. Shallower trajectory will not give enough time for larger debris to be completely destroyed but the job is mostly done. In case of nuclear tipped missile it is preferable to intercept them at higher altitude to insure radiation is contained, burned and diluted at higher altitude. The commercial plasmatron (like PACT) incinerator burn radiation waste at around 1400-1600C (0.5 sec residence time) which is easily achieved in atmosphere by falling debris etc.

In other words you are right that PAC is not ideal system to intercept nuclear tipped SRBMs and that is the reason Indians went for their own system that intercepts at higher altitudes and combines HTK and explosive charge technologies.

If this thing translates into a functioning system, it will no doubt be the single most important scientific achievement of independent India in my book. We are at the bleeding cutting edge of the technology here compared to the best that world has got.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Sid » 04 Sep 2008 23:48

PAD HTK is really an achievement for India. But it still need to pass tests where countermeasures and maneuvering warheads are employed.

There is this very interesting concept for intercepting BM that US army worked on in 1980's. It was called that Homing Overlay Experiment or HOE. But it used kinetic kill vehicle and in the end were able to intercept an ICBM at 160km altitude.

it looked something like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/SO4_Hoe_open_Web.jpg.

In my opinion something like this, which reduces the chances of any error, should also be perused after current HTK vehicles matures because sooner more smarter missiles and decoys will be used by other operators.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 23:53

Sid, The PAD is better than that for the targets its designed for. I will leave experts to back that up.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby rocky » 05 Sep 2008 04:16

Missile Defence shield to be tested in November

There were also plans to enter the flight trial stage late next year for 'A-5,' the long range missile. It will be at a higher range than the Agni III, he said.

Refusing to divulge the range of the missile, he said, "It was commensurate in keeping with threat to the region."
I guess the long range for A-5 means they will add another stage and about 10 tonnes to make it go another measley 500km :rotfl:

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ranganathan » 05 Sep 2008 04:34

A-5 is claimed to be 5000 km range just enough to shake up panda and not scare the west :roll: .

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 05 Sep 2008 08:15

Sid wrote:There was some discussion on BR or some other forum (i cant remember) about kill efficiency of such BMD systems. It was said that PAC system's main failure was its inability to destroy the warhead. Instead it used to deflect or damage the missile like something.

Does our BMD take a different path? Because if we intercept a BM over a city with 100kt power and fails to destroy the warhead, it wont make a difference as it will just fall to point B instead of A.

Is a fragmentation warhead enough to destroy a incoming BM's payload? Or we need something more to cripple/fry its electronics?


I think here you are citing Scud attacks with conventional warheads. The Scuds that landed at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were Al-Hussein types ( local Iraqi versions) and it is believed that the intercepted Scuds caused more damage than those which were not intercepted due to the disintegration of warheads/body.

But in case of a nuclear warhead, there is a chain of complicated events both electronic (safety interlocks) and mechanical (explosives/neutron gun/core) which needs to be intact if nuclear explosion is desired. So if the integrity of nuclear warhead is compromised, no nuke will explode but yes it may cause some casualties if someone it hit by the shrapnel.

Cheers....

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 05 Sep 2008 08:40

Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?


IMHO apart from TBM, only the warhead re-enters the earth atmosphere. The payload fairing is ejected while the missile is in space and then the warheads are ejected from the payload adapter, if it is MIRV warhead and if it is single warhead (in this case no warhead fairing) then the warhead itself is ejeted from missile body.

Cheers....

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 05 Sep 2008 08:52

p_saggu wrote:This one question I have wanted to ask for sometime now.
We know that all P5 deploy nuclear warheads which deploy "safe" explosives, in addition to other measures which would make accidental detonation (and perhaps damage too) difficult. The US scientists have claimed that their nuclear weapons could survive a major fire and not go off because of those "safe"explosives.
Other than a direct hit on a warhead, or a very close explosion, is it not possible that a nuclear warhead may actually survive a BMD intervention?


High explosives like TNT, RDX ect do not explode on contact with fire like low explosives like gun powder but they need shock for detonation. That's why a detonator (electrical/electronic trigger with low explosives) is used for IEDs containing high explosives. High explosives are very stable, insensitive to temperature and plastic when mixed with some binder like wax. Essentially the US scientists want to say that nuclear warheads will not explode accidentally (it may get damaged and become inoperative though) if caught in a fire because of safety measures and safe explosives. But it does't mean that an explosion from BMD attack will not take it apart and damage it to the extent that it will not explode.

Cheers....

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 » 05 Sep 2008 10:06

neerajbhandari wrote:
p_saggu wrote:This one question I have wanted to ask for sometime now.
We know that all P5 deploy nuclear warheads which deploy "safe" explosives, in addition to other measures which would make accidental detonation (and perhaps damage too) difficult. The US scientists have claimed that their nuclear weapons could survive a major fire and not go off because of those "safe"explosives.
Other than a direct hit on a warhead, or a very close explosion, is it not possible that a nuclear warhead may actually survive a BMD intervention?


High explosives like TNT, RDX ect do not explode on contact with fire like low explosives like gun powder but they need shock for detonation. That's why a detonator (electrical/electronic trigger with low explosives) is used for IEDs containing high explosives. High explosives are very stable, insensitive to temperature and plastic when mixed with some binder like wax. Essentially the US scientists want to say that nuclear warheads will not explode accidentally (it may get damaged and become inoperative though) if caught in a fire because of safety measures and safe explosives. But it does't mean that an explosion from BMD attack will not take it apart and damage it to the extent that it will not explode.

Cheers....


Quick question guys if the HTK hits the MIRV in exo atmosphere then what would happen to the nuclear material???

Would it just burn up in the atmosphere?

Also if it was endo atmosphere would it have enough time to completely burn up especially the nuclear material???

Any coments would be great

Cheers

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 » 07 Sep 2008 13:46

Few observations and answer:
1. Un-exploded nuclear material is far less dangereous than the material after nuclear chain reaction has occured. {in the order of million times less radioactive}
2. Unexploded natural or enriched Uranium is the most harmless substance. The radioactiility is veru very low.
3. Un exploded weapon grade Pu is still quite harmless compared to the stew after chain reaction. Pu burns/oxidizes vigereously when exposed to air. Pu exposure requires effected population to use special salt in the cooking.
4. An ICBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere will largely vapourize into its oxide form, but substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pit will IMHO almost certainly be vaporied because it is so small.
5. An IRBM/SRBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere or will be partly vapourizes into its oxide form, but more substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pieces of fissile pit will reach earth surface.
6. An RV intercepted at low altitude (<30 km) will have larger chunks of fissile pit.
7. A SRBM RV at low altitude will have an almost intact pit hitting surface.

The death and damage due to worst possible contamination is many orders less v.s. if the RV had explode as intended.

Intercepted RV will require temporary relocation of population below, and immediate administration of salt that will prevent absorption of radioactive material into body (absorbed fissile materials salt tends to congregates in bones). Debris and top soil around it need to be recovered and stowed away. If one recalls after a nuclear explosion the most lethal radio activity is due to absorption of chain reaction byproducts and nuclear particle by the non-radio active materail of the bomb/RV. More than half fissile material (>80% for fission bomb and >55% of boosted fission bomb) of the bomb anyway does not participate in fission chain reaction and is wasted and dispersed with along with the newly created highly radioactive material.

Fissile material burnt high up in atmosphere will naturally disperse over a wide area and is effectively dust unto dust. Almost harmless, just slightly elevated Pu or U in the top soil.

So RV interception produces far fewer casualties (short/long term) and far less area is contaminated, after decontmination the land can be immediately put back to use for farming/living.

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 » 07 Sep 2008 14:03

Arun_S wrote:Few observations and answer:
1. Un-exploded nuclear material is far less dangereous than the material after nuclear chain reaction has occured. {in the order of million times less radioactive}
2. Unexploded natural or enriched Uranium is the most harmless substance. The radioactiility is veru very low.
3. Un exploded weapon grade Pu is still quite harmless compared to the stew after chain reaction. Pu burns/oxidizes vigereously when exposed to air. Pu exposure requires effected population to use special salt in the cooking.
4. An ICBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere will largely vapourize into its oxide form, but substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pit will IMHO almost certainly be vaporied because it is so small.
5. An IRBM/SRBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere or will be partly vapourizes into its oxide form, but more substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pieces of fissile pit will reach earth surface.
6. An RV intercepted at low altitude (<30 km) will have larger chunks of fissile pit.
7. A SRBM RV at low altitude will have an almost intact pit hitting surface.

The death and damage due to worst possible contamination is many orders less v.s. if the RV had explode as intended.

Intercepted RV will require temporary relocation of population below, and immediate administration of salt that will prevent absorption of radioactive material into body (absorbed fissile materials salt tends to congregates in bones). Debris and top soil around it need to be recovered and stowed away. If one recalls after a nuclear explosion the most lethal radio activity is due to absorption of chain reaction byproducts and nuclear particle by the non-radio active materail of the bomb/RV. More than half fissile material (>80% for fission bomb and >55% of boosted fission bomb) of the bomb anyway does not participate in fission chain reaction and is wasted and dispersed with along with the newly created highly radioactive material.

Fissile material burnt high up in atmosphere will naturally disperse over a wide area and is effectively dust unto dust. Almost harmless, just slightly elevated Pu or U in the top soil.

So RV interception produces far fewer casualties (short/long term) and far less area is contaminated, after decontmination the land can be immediately put back to use for farming/living.


Thank you Arun sir, that clears pretty much all of my doubts on what would happen to the nuclear material in exo/endo atmospher.

Cheers

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 07 Sep 2008 14:32

Arun_S wrote:More than half fissile material (>80% for fission bomb and >55% of boosted fission bomb) of the bomb anyway does not participate in fission chain reaction and is wasted and dispersed with along with the newly created highly radioactive material.


'Little boy' (U-235) which fell on Hiroshima only utilized 1% of it's fissile U-235 (64 Kg) and 'Fat Man' (Pu-239) which was used on Nagasaki fissioned 20% of total plutonium (6.2 Kg).

Cheers...

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sunilUpa » 09 Sep 2008 02:13

Astra ground testing on September 11

HYDERABAD: Beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile Astra will be tested at the Integrated Test Range, Chandipur-on-sea, off the Orissa coast, on September 11.

Scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will conduct a ground-level flight test of the missile, which can intercept fast-moving targets at supersonic speeds (1.2 to 1.4 Mach).

This will be the first of four ground-level flight trials. The second is scheduled for September 13. The subsequent tests will be conducted in one-and-half to two months.

Astra Project Director S. Gollakota told The Hindu here on Monday that scientists would test the guidance, avionics and the functioning of the communication link between the mother aircraft and the missile. The communication link in Radio Frequency would be tested and validated.

The tests would be used to generate data relating to temperature, vibration, stress and strain levels experienced by the missile at different speeds and altitudes.

Second stage of tests


The four trials would be followed by captive flight tests early next year when the missile would be mated to the aircraft. Several manoeuvres at different speeds and altitudes would be conducted and the compatibility of electronics, avionics and other systems checked. After the captive flight tests, the missile would be integrated with the Sukhoi-30 and test-fired by the middle of next year.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ranganathan » 09 Sep 2008 02:32

How useful is a AAM with a ridiculous speed like mach 1.2-1.4??

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2743
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby JTull » 09 Sep 2008 02:40

ranganathan wrote:How useful is a AAM with a ridiculous speed like mach 1.2-1.4??


That's the speed of the target.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 09 Sep 2008 02:42

ranganathan wrote:How useful is a AAM with a ridiculous speed like mach 1.2-1.4??

its speed is >4 M.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ranganathan » 09 Sep 2008 02:44

Yeah thats what I thought but the bl**dy DDM keep repeating that nonsense about mach 1.2-1.4.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 09 Sep 2008 02:54

this time it's not DDM ranganathan. as JTull clarified, that's the speed limit of target that can be engaged. read again.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ranganathan » 09 Sep 2008 03:06

Why can't a mach 2 target be targeted? Especially in head on mode?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 09 Sep 2008 03:15

I would hazard a guess : scan time which is mainly SW constraint. if this is the reason, it may improve with time.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ranganathan » 09 Sep 2008 03:23

But if it guided by a radar that shouldn't be a problem right? Anyway hope to see the first test from an MKI soon.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 09 Sep 2008 03:38

astra is not sarh. it uses an on board seeker.

1.2-1.4 covers almost all a/c including fighters and also UAVs and CMs. if they can improve to around 2 mach, that should do just fine.

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Mihir.D » 09 Sep 2008 14:33

Rahul M wrote:astra is not sarh. it uses an on board seeker.

1.2-1.4 covers almost all a/c including fighters and also UAVs and CMs. if they can improve to around 2 mach, that should do just fine.



Why would they need to target Mach 2 ? How many fighters around the world can do sustained Mach 2 when being chased by a AAM ? Mig 25,Mig 31,F-22 ?
More interesting would be the range at which the seeker would go active and the no escape zone of the missile.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 09 Sep 2008 14:55

a/c don't have to sustain their max speed for long to outrun an AAM, AAMs run out of steam fairly quickly. the engagement window isn't that big for an AAM, it's counted in seconds.
there are a few a/c around which can sustain speeds around mach 2 for a few seconds.
moreover, the astra may have to intercept newer CMs in the future, other countries could move to supersonic CMs too !

seeker range is 15 km.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests