Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Dec 2008 21:41

Thanks Sivab

Simple point is as both 1.2L diesel engine and 1.2L petrol engine have same capacity can they be termed as one and the same.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Dec 2008 22:24

austin, what kind of a warhead are you envisaging ? what would be its blast radius ?

let's say, shourya is aimed at a DDG and fired. how far can the DDG move during shourya's flight time ? I assume you would probably compensate for this movement by extrapolating the DDG's path but what if it starts moving in a completely different direction/simply stops and doesn't move at all. would the DDG still be inside the blast radius of a conventional warhead ?

brahmos doesn't have this problem because of its in-flight datalink and homing system. AFA I understand a cruise missile can react to the changing environment, a BM can't.
of course if that can be changed.......

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 30 Dec 2008 22:57

Kanson wrote:Thanks Sivab

Simple point is as both 1.2L diesel engine and 1.2L petrol engine have same capacity can they be termed as one and the same.

The only thing I am not sure is whether 38s represents the burn out time for motor, it may just be the time period for maximum thrust (16 tons). Considering the motor is 6m, burn out time may be much longer. Could you clarify.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Dec 2008 00:08

Rahul M wrote:austin, what kind of a warhead are you envisaging ? what would be its blast radius ?

let's say, shourya is aimed at a DDG and fired. how far can the DDG move during shourya's flight time ? I assume you would probably compensate for this movement by extrapolating the DDG's path but what if it starts moving in a completely different direction/simply stops and doesn't move at all. would the DDG still be inside the blast radius of a conventional warhead ?

brahmos doesn't have this problem because of its in-flight datalink and homing system. AFA I understand a cruise missile can react to the changing environment, a BM can't.
of course if that can be changed.......

Shourya aiming at a DDG ? I am referring about Ground targets ( static and semi-mobile if real time intel is available ) , about warhead type , one can use the 7 different conventional type developed for Prithvi.

Brahmos was an anti-ship missile which was then developed further into LACM , due to use of radar it can hit radio contrast target , Brahmos is short on range as well.

But brahmos and shourya are two different system developed to deal with different problem.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2008 04:14

sorry boss, seems I misunderstood the context of the phrase semi-mobile and the reference to anti-ship missile in your post.
sloppy on my part !

yes, I agree to what you say. btw, is there any navy that uses BMs for conventional strike role ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Dec 2008 15:39

Rahul M wrote:yes, I agree to what you say. btw, is there any navy that uses BMs for conventional strike role ?

Not that I know off , Cruise Missile seems to be in fashion on board surface ships.

But Shourya is very unique in its category and class , I dont know of any country which has such a system with is canisterised ready to fire system and has a small foot print with such advanced guidance on board.

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Dec 2008 18:45

Yup, the chinese shashaojian or assassins mace ! ballistic missiles for the american/indian aircraft carriers

http://www.infowar-monitor.net/modules. ... e&sid=1044

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/HJ20Ad01.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2008 19:11

that shashou jian is actually a conventionally armed BM hasn't been confirmed ever by any credible expert AFAIK.

this inference survives on 'hearsay of hearsay' so to speak. shashoujian refers to asymmetric response that allows a weaker power to achieve supremacy over its rival and it does not have to be BMs vs AC. I would suspect it defines a class of responses rather than a particular one.

till date chinese BMs have demonstrated nowhere near the accuracy or reliability required to hit
a moving warship at sea. PRC would target USN ACs but with supersonic cruise missiles.

the ASAT missile is a much likelier candidate for the shashoujian philosophy.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 31 Dec 2008 20:10

It was mentioned earlier that China’s strategy in defeating the superior by the inferior is shashaojian or the "assassin’s mace". "Mace" is not only a blinding spray; it is also a meaner and deadlier weapon, a spiked war club of ancient times used to knock out an adversary with one blow. The spikes of the modern Chinese mace may well spell the end for aircraft carriers.

The first of these spikes consists of medium- and short-range ballistic missiles (modified and improved DF 21s/CSS-5 and DF 15s) with terminally guided maneuverable re-entry vehicles with circular error probability of 10 meters. DF 21s/CSS-5s can hit slow-moving targets at sea up to 2,500km away.

The second spike is an array of supersonic and highly accurate cruise missiles, some with range of 300km or more, that can be delivered by submarines, aircraft, surface ships or even common trucks (which are ideal for use in terrain like that of Iran along the Persian Gulf). These supersonic cruise missiles travel at more than twice the speed of sound (mach 2.5), or faster than a rifle bullet. They can be armed with conventional, anti-radiation, thermobaric, or electro-magnetic pulse warheads, or even nuclear warheads if need be. The Aegis missile defense system and the Phalanx Close-in Defense weapons of the US Navy are ineffective against these supersonic cruise missiles.

A barrage of these cruise missiles, followed by land-based intermediate- or short-range ballistic missiles with terminal guidance systems, could wreak havoc on an aircraft carrier battle group. Whether there are seven or 15 carrier battle groups, it will not matter, for China has enough ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy them all. Unfortunately for the US and British navies, they do not have the capacity to counter a barrage of supersonic cruise missile followed by a second barrage of ballistic missiles.

The first and second spikes of the "assassin’s mace" are sufficient to render the aircraft carrier battle groups obsolete. But there is a third spike which is equally dreadful. This is the deadly SHKVAL or "Squall" rocket torpedo developed by Russia and passed on to China. It is like an under-water missile. It weighs 6,000lbs and travels at 200 knots or 230mph, with a range of 7,500 yards. It is guided by autopilot and with its high speed, makes evasive maneuvers by carriers or nuclear submarines highly difficult. It is truly a submarine and carrier buster; and again, the US and its allies have no known defense against such a supercavitating rocket torpedo.

The "assassin’s mace" has still more spikes. The fourth spike consists of extra-large, bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines laid by submarines along the projected paths of advancing carrier battle groups. These sea mines are designed specifically for targeting aircraft carriers. They can be grouped in clusters so that they will hit the carriers in barrages.

The final spike of the mace is a fleet of old fighter aircraft (China has thousands of them) modified as unmanned combat aerial vehicles fitted with extra fuel tanks and armed with stand-off anti-ship missiles. They are also packed with high explosives so that after firing off their precision-guided anti-ship missiles on the battle group, they will then finish their mission by dive-bombing "kamikaze" style into their targets.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Dec 2008 22:53

The most difficult part of dealing with Carrier ( CBG ) is to find where it exist in open sea , CBG have been known to simply dissapear in open seas.

Even if one finds it , the CBG is constantly moving target , with layered defence provided by AWACS/Aircraft and Submarine out to 500 Km , not to mention the US CBG are well networked and connected to Survellence , Intelligence satellites and multiple assets on shore.

The Chinese can develop assassin mice or rodent strategy and can have wet dreams about attacking with BM , but at the end it is just that wet dreams.

Even the mighty Soviet Union had developed this 3rd Generation Oscar 2 SSGN with 24 Shipwreck to deal with CBG , they just hoped a couple would get as close as possible and fire the full load of Shipwreck and hoped that would do the trick.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2009 07:10

Vivek K wrote:For Laymen can someone clarify Kanson's comment in simple terms?

Kanson has an old grudge against Arun_S from the nuke deal and makes hit and run attacks on Arun. No need to waste bandwidth on his non sequitors.

nash · Post by **nash** » 01 Jan 2009 10:19

uddu wrote:It was mentioned earlier that China’s strategy in defeating the superior by the inferior is shashaojian or the "assassin’s mace". "Mace" is not only a blinding spray; it is also a meaner and deadlier weapon, a spiked war club of ancient times used to knock out an adversary with one blow. The spikes of the modern Chinese mace may well spell the end for aircraft carriers.

The first of these spikes consists of medium- and short-range ballistic missiles (modified and improved DF 21s/CSS-5 and DF 15s) with terminally guided maneuverable re-entry vehicles with circular error probability of 10 meters. DF 21s/CSS-5s can hit slow-moving targets at sea up to 2,500km away.

The second spike is an array of supersonic and highly accurate cruise missiles, some with range of 300km or more, that can be delivered by submarines, aircraft, surface ships or even common trucks (which are ideal for use in terrain like that of Iran along the Persian Gulf). These supersonic cruise missiles travel at more than twice the speed of sound (mach 2.5), or faster than a rifle bullet. They can be armed with conventional, anti-radiation, thermobaric, or electro-magnetic pulse warheads, or even nuclear warheads if need be. The Aegis missile defense system and the Phalanx Close-in Defense weapons of the US Navy are ineffective against these supersonic cruise missiles.

A barrage of these cruise missiles, followed by land-based intermediate- or short-range ballistic missiles with terminal guidance systems, could wreak havoc on an aircraft carrier battle group. Whether there are seven or 15 carrier battle groups, it will not matter, for China has enough ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy them all. Unfortunately for the US and British navies, they do not have the capacity to counter a barrage of supersonic cruise missile followed by a second barrage of ballistic missiles.

The first and second spikes of the "assassin’s mace" are sufficient to render the aircraft carrier battle groups obsolete. But there is a third spike which is equally dreadful. This is the deadly SHKVAL or "Squall" rocket torpedo developed by Russia and passed on to China. It is like an under-water missile. It weighs 6,000lbs and travels at 200 knots or 230mph, with a range of 7,500 yards. It is guided by autopilot and with its high speed, makes evasive maneuvers by carriers or nuclear submarines highly difficult. It is truly a submarine and carrier buster; and again, the US and its allies have no known defense against such a supercavitating rocket torpedo.

The "assassin’s mace" has still more spikes. The fourth spike consists of extra-large, bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines laid by submarines along the projected paths of advancing carrier battle groups. These sea mines are designed specifically for targeting aircraft carriers. They can be grouped in clusters so that they will hit the carriers in barrages.

The final spike of the mace is a fleet of old fighter aircraft (China has thousands of them) modified as unmanned combat aerial vehicles fitted with extra fuel tanks and armed with stand-off anti-ship missiles. They are also packed with high explosives so that after firing off their precision-guided anti-ship missiles on the battle group, they will then finish their mission by dive-bombing "kamikaze" style into their targets.

Do you think US will wait for all these spikes to get executed ?

SShah · Post by **SShah** » 01 Jan 2009 10:57

Like Austin and others mentioned, this article is nothing more then just some laughable wet dreams of lizard. While the suggested scenario is impossible, if something even close of this sort happens, US WILL responds with hundreds of deadly nukes (SLBMs, SLCMs) with deadly accuracy and WILL destroy the lizard (including it's tail). US of A probably is the most protective and aggressive war machine in the world. Forgiveness simply doesn’t exist in the war doctrine of this nation. It just can’t spare anyone who attacks its interest, let alone its navy. (Unlike us – we’re just sitting at the fence after suffering the most humiliating slap on the face from the Pukistan during our recent Mumbai ordeal). Besides, US are probably the most proactive war machine as well. Nobody knows what’s been cocking under several skunk-work projects across the nation at the moment. Like many old technologies that were introduced to the world only in recent times (Internet, stealth concept etc), the world can only guess about the current state of tech that DOD possesses.

RamBharose · Post by **RamBharose** » 01 Jan 2009 11:54

The grandiose delusions of "Assassins Mace" and "Spikes" apart, the Chinese would do well to remember the massive superiority US has in terms of its reach into Chinese heartland. After the first so-called spike, US would have all the excuses to blow everybody and their mother back to kingdom come. With 30 or so ICBMs and no strategic bombers, Chinese should keep all the maces and the spikes where they belong, in Mao's syphilis ridden behind.
Shkval has a range of about 3-4 miles and the Chinese submarine would have to get THAT close to an American carrier. And about the 50 year old "kamikaze" spaceships they call their "5th spike", well the less said the better. Anyways, they would need runways to fly from, and real estate in China would come at a bit of a premium after American response to the 1st and 2nd spikes.

Mines are probably the only option but then why would the American carriers need to get that close to the Chinese coast?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2009 13:42

sivab wrote:
Kanson wrote:Thanks Sivab

Simple point is as both 1.2L diesel engine and 1.2L petrol engine have same capacity can they be termed as one and the same.
The only thing I am not sure is whether 38s represents the burn out time for motor, it may just be the time period for maximum thrust (16 tons). Considering the motor is 6m, burn out time may be much longer. Could you clarify.

No, it is not length that you look at, but dia, thickness of packaging. To say, for a typical motor, keeping everything else same, increase in length increases thrust, and increase in dia, increases time to burnout.

The spec says what it has to say in black and white. I mean no hidden meaning.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2009 14:04

ramana wrote:
Vivek K wrote:For Laymen can someone clarify Kanson's comment in simple terms?
Kanson has an old grudge against Arun_S from the nuke deal and makes hit and run attacks on Arun. No need to waste bandwidth on his non sequitors.

Oh..it is once again Ramana, the gracious....

Ji...is it somekind of prank, joke or flame bait ?

Sorry ji you are wrong again, it is not N-deal per se, preciously i was into argument when Mr. Arun_S went on rampage in slandering and abusing BARC people and belittling Indian Nukes. There were so many others who argued with Arun on this at that time..Or you going to charge those people of holding grudges in every discussion. Those who followed the Nuke thread at that time knows who ran out of discussion.

There are n ways of replying to my post, if you really want to comment, without resorting to such low tactics. Are you telling that you cant stand alternate views.

Seriously, with due respect and due apologizes, your post doesnt fit a reply of a forum mod of your stature but as a fanboy of Arun_S gimmicks. And implies that Arun's statement and thesis can't stand on its own; it needs "active support" from you people to hold its fort ?

Or, you are having any grudges against me ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2009 14:16

uddu wrote: A barrage of these cruise missiles, followed by land-based intermediate- or short-range ballistic missiles with terminal guidance systems, could wreak havoc on an aircraft carrier battle group. Whether there are seven or 15 carrier battle groups, it will not matter, for China has enough ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy them all. Unfortunately for the US and British navies, they do not have the capacity to counter a barrage of supersonic cruise missile followed by a second barrage of ballistic missiles.

The first and second spikes of the "assassin’s mace" are sufficient to render the aircraft carrier battle groups obsolete. But there is a third spike which is equally dreadful. This is the deadly SHKVAL or "Squall" rocket torpedo developed by Russia and passed on to China. It is like an under-water missile. It weighs 6,000lbs and travels at 200 knots or 230mph, with a range of 7,500 yards. It is guided by autopilot and with its high speed, makes evasive maneuvers by carriers or nuclear submarines highly difficult. It is truly a submarine and carrier buster; and again, the US and its allies have no known defense against such a supercavitating rocket torpedo.

The "assassin’s mace" has still more spikes. The fourth spike consists of extra-large, bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines laid by submarines along the projected paths of advancing carrier battle groups. These sea mines are designed specifically for targeting aircraft carriers. They can be grouped in clusters so that they will hit the carriers in barrages.

The final spike of the mace is a fleet of old fighter aircraft (China has thousands of them) modified as unmanned combat aerial vehicles fitted with extra fuel tanks and armed with stand-off anti-ship missiles. They are also packed with high explosives so that after firing off their precision-guided anti-ship missiles on the battle group, they will then finish their mission by dive-bombing "kamikaze" style into their targets.

Is it written by Chinese for the Chinese ? Americans seems to have developed defence against SHKVAL. And these barrages of CM / BM can hold these Americans to certain extent...

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Jan 2009 14:31

Kanson wrote:
ramana wrote: Kanson has an old grudge against Arun_S from the nuke deal and makes hit and run attacks on Arun. No need to waste bandwidth on his non sequitors.
Oh..it is once again Ramana, the gracious....

Ji...is it somekind of prank, joke or flame bait ?

Sorry ji you are wrong again, it is not N-deal per se, preciously i was into argument when Mr. Arun_S went on rampage in slandering and abusing BARC people and belittling Indian Nukes. There were so many others who argued with Arun on this at that time..Or you going to charge those people of holding grudges in every discussion. Those who followed the Nuke thread at that time knows who ran out of discussion.

There are n ways of replying to my post, if you really want to comment, without resorting to such low tactics. Are you telling that you cant stand alternate views.

Seriously, with due respect and due apologizes, your post doesnt fit a reply of a forum mod of your stature but as a fanboy of Arun_S gimmicks. And implies that Arun's statement and thesis can't stand on its own; it needs "active support" from you people to hold its fort ?

Or, you are having any grudges against me ?

who is flamebaiting --> you or ramana

your post has actually proven ramana point that you have petty grudge against Arun S and are attacking him on some vague basis

please do not waste this thread

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2009 14:45

There are n ways of replying to my post, if you really want to comment, without resorting to such low tactics. Are you telling that you cant stand alternate views

A flame bait needs a reply of its sort...take it what you want... As a forum mod, there are ways to respond. If he has issues, he can deal with me straight away...dont have to bring N- deal and associated things there.. Who is bringing unrelated things here.. Next what..I had dicussion on Nukkad thread...Does he going to bring it here...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2009 14:46

Arun S and are attacking him on some vague basis

Where did i attacked anyone on vague basis ? You are bringing unnecessary things...

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 01 Jan 2009 18:20

Kanson has an old grudge against Arun_S from the nuke deal and makes hit and run attacks on Arun. No need to waste bandwidth on his non sequitors.

With all due respect - was that warranted? Kanson raises a point. If Arun/Kanson/anybody clarifies the issue we can move on to other things. There would be no need to waste bandwidth on Kansons smilies.

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 04 Jan 2009 04:07

uddu wrote:.[/u]

The first and second spikes of the "assassin’s mace" are sufficient to render the aircraft carrier battle groups obsolete. But there is a third spike which is equally dreadful. This is the deadly SHKVAL or "Squall" rocket torpedo developed by Russia and passed on to China. It is like an under-water missile. It weighs 6,000lbs and travels at 200 knots or 230mph, with a range of 7,500 yards. It is guided by autopilot and with its high speed, makes evasive maneuvers by carriers or nuclear submarines highly difficult. It is truly a submarine and carrier buster; and again, the US and its allies have no known defense against such a supercavitating rocket torpedo.

.

Forget the third wave of SHKVAL torpedo. It's a foemidable weapon,no doubt about that but the launching platform has to get really close to the carrier battle group in order to make a successful strike. And with the two LA Class guarding the battle group and in future to be replaced by Virginia class, Chinese submarine launching platforms does'nt stand a chance approaching within 50miles of the battle group let alone the 7500yards range and launching an attack. They would be cut to pieces by American hunter killers and moreover Chinese subs are very noisy.

kit · Post by **kit** » 04 Jan 2009 13:17

Well i was implying what kind of protection do Indian aircraft carriers have against this chinese shashaojian .In BRF we are more concerned what India s options are ! USN can take care of itself., can IN ? No one likes to be surprised in a war especially when capital assets are involved.Prudence and caution tells IN to be prepared., even if all the 'spikes' doesnt exist as of now.Simply buying all sorts of arms is not the answer., IN needs a first use nuke policy if faced with a similar attack, that seems to be the only deterrence, since china s naval capability both qualitatively and quantitavely heads north, and IN looks likely to be able to maintain its present strength.GOI needs to formulate a tactical nuclear policy for conventional warfare in the next 5 yr.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 04 Jan 2009 13:26

The first spike is a bluff. Chinese balistic missiles unless nuclear are useless against ships. The second is exactly why IN has gone for Barak-2 and Barak-1. Anyone believing IN won't test these missiles against the superior brahmos is kidding himself. The chinese cruise missiles don't match upto brahmos. Shkval is potent at short ranges but given the noisy chinese subs it can be nullified especially by scorpene and ATV/Akula-II. The fourth is where MCMV's come into picture. I hope the MCMV's being made in Goa are ocean going to accompany the carriers and lastly the obsolete fighters are more of a last ditch effort than a potent weapon. I also doubt their capability of converting them into UCV's.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 04 Jan 2009 13:57

few queries,

would ATV fleet with nuclear tipped SLBMs be used to guard the IN's capitol ships?

is the range of conventional subs sufficient to allow them escort warships to the china sea or beyond IOC region? will our own version of nuclear attack subs take shape? from the scorpene wiki page it says Brazilian navy is buying scorpene hulls to be fitted with their own nuclear propulsion unit.

with the ATV fleet powered by nuclear propulsion units, is there scope for ADS class vessels powered by such?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Jan 2009 14:53

With the size and profile of Shaurya missile, I think that ATV would be slightly bigger than Akula SSN. It would be like Severdinsk-2.

My guess is that ATV would have empty weight of 5-6000 tons, with dead ballast 7-8000 tons, combat ready 9-10,000 tons, surfaced combat ready 10-11,000 and combat ready submerged around 12-14,000 tons.

The guess is based on the fact that Shaurya is 10m long and hence dia of the sub has to be atleast 11m for the inner hull and 13m for the outer hull. Atleast 4 to 12 x 3 VLS tubes will have to be fitted in the hull. Rest everything like Akula-2 SSN.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 05 Jan 2009 03:07

Is it confirmed that ATV is double hulled? Otherwise it will be smaller.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 05 Jan 2009 08:17

First of all, isn't it an "Indian Missile Technology Discussion". Secondly all those members who are in awe of chinese Mace and Spike doctrine need to understand the fundamentals of US Military. You can't understand the enormity of the task unless you are familiar with US Military Working, her Arsenal, Technology, doctrine, assets, logistics, supply chain etc. Just to give you an example, Virginia class submarine does not even use periscope. This simple thing will give you the idea of sophistication in Virginia Class Sub. Shkvall Torpedo is more hype than substance, it will work great against Navies other than US, in that respect it does have market. US Carrier Group has 3-4 subs escorting under water. The depth chargers that US uses plus the Anti Sub Torpedos dropped by Helos are generation ahead against anything available to others. US has perfected the art of fighting war on high seas, under sea. Everything else is just a conjecture. If chinese want to spread out Jingoistic document to make themselves feel good so be it. Real power does not need to respond, when time comes, chinese "Dholak typle Subs" will be long detected and blown like a "Dholak".

I don't know how Raj Malhotra came up with ATV dimensions, he is very close if not accurate.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 05 Jan 2009 08:23

How do you know he is accurate?

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 05 Jan 2009 08:39

vavinash wrote:How do you know he is accurate?

Learn to read first. I never said he was accurate.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 05 Jan 2009 08:42

The Chinese cannot be and must not be taken lightly. The utilize all means to gain technology. What the U.S does is none of our business. What we must do to counter the Chinese and U.S tech must be the question.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
Link

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 05 Jan 2009 08:43

Baljeet wrote:
vavinash wrote:How do you know he is accurate?
Learn to read first. I never said he was accurate.

Ok, I will bite. How do YOU know he is close???

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Jan 2009 10:48

this thread is getting more interesting

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Jan 2009 21:03

Anabhaya wrote: With all due respect - was that warranted? Kanson raises a point. If Arun/Kanson/anybody clarifies the issue we can move on to other things. There would be no need to waste bandwidth on Kansons smilies.

Yes Anabhaya, if anyone can demonstrate how the motor in contention can mimic the profile of Shourya will be a great learning excercise for all of us.

if you ask me, i define Shourya = Brahmos + something.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jan 2009 21:11

if you ask me, i define Shourya = Brahmos + something.

a solid fueled ballistic missile = a liquid fueled ramjet powered cruise missile + something ?!
kindly explain.

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Jan 2009 21:35

heh heh

.. sorry could nt resist

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jan 2009 21:43

solid fueled ramjet is a possibility.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Jan 2009 22:51

Rahul M wrote:
if you ask me, i define Shourya = Brahmos + something.

a solid fueled ballistic missile = a liquid fueled ramjet powered cruise missile + something ?!
kindly explain.

It is not the question of what goes in but what it does.

When i first said, Dhanush is a liquid-fuelled in this forum, i have to wade through waves of resistance and the prevalent knowledge of BRF at that time was Dhanush is powered by the same motor under discussion. It took an interview from Saraswat to settle the issue. He made it clear that it is liquid-fuelled. Then the same motor was persuvasively recommended for PAD here with lot of explanation after that it was even recommended for AAD. I dont know how many avatars this motor took before, but i see this again recommended for Shourya. I'm sure you want to say something on this. What do you think about this Universal motor ? How good it can be for Shourya ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Jan 2009 23:22

kit wrote:Well i was implying what kind of protection do Indian aircraft carriers have against this chinese shashaojian .In BRF we are more concerned what India s options are ! USN can take care of itself., can IN ? No one likes to be surprised in a war especially when capital assets are involved.Prudence and caution tells IN to be prepared., even if all the 'spikes' doesnt exist as of now.Simply buying all sorts of arms is not the answer., IN needs a first use nuke policy if faced with a similar attack, that seems to be the only deterrence, since china s naval capability both qualitatively and quantitavely heads north, and IN looks likely to be able to maintain its present strength.GOI needs to formulate a tactical nuclear policy for conventional warfare in the next 5 yr.

First we have to worry about having decent Carrier. Then we can worry about protecting them from Chinese.

1. First of all, to target the Carrier, one need realtime sharing of coordinates. Do China has this capability ? Let say for dicussion it has..

2. Carrier at max speed moves approx a km/min. When those BMs were fired, it def. take min 5 mins. By that time, Carrier would have moved by 5km. What good it does with conventional warhead.

3. Terminal guidance to warhead: The potency of BM is it is a free falling object moving at high speed immune to external hindrance except physical interception. If there is guidance to warhead, then it subjected to same treatment as other missiles.

4. If China uses Nuclear warhead: it is the most stupidest thing China could ever do.

5. Barrage of BMs: Then what is the purpose of escorts armed with missles like SM3 ?

6. Barrage of CMs: They will be destroyed like mosquitoes shown in Good Night ads. Before entering the theatre they will be hunted down.

7. SHKVAL: Chinese subs as a pack are war-gaming to lure the sentry elements and attacking the big ones. At that time SHKVAL may be useful. But the point is US goes to the scene with all the paraphernalia. We might be using the same SHKVAL against them if we already purchased. After all it is revenge weapon, right ?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 05 Jan 2009 23:38

vasu_ray wrote:few queries,

would ATV fleet with nuclear tipped SLBMs be used to guard the IN's capitol ships?

is the range of conventional subs sufficient to allow them escort warships to the china sea or beyond IOC region? will our own version of nuclear attack subs take shape? from the scorpene wiki page it says Brazilian navy is buying scorpene hulls to be fitted with their own nuclear propulsion unit.

with the ATV fleet powered by nuclear propulsion units, is there scope for ADS class vessels powered by such?

ATV is currently a DRDO technology demonstration initiative, it may not get into active naval service at all. Regarding testing of SLBM, ATV can do it, but work is far from complete in this area

Nuclear power for ADS is more of a political/environmental question than a technical one. Technically very much possible.