Indian Missiles and Munitions 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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Jul 2010 18:18

satellite imagery permits us to prepare maps of entire world if needed. so we can provide imagery for entire path if the memory and computer want it.

will make it independent of glonass/gps accuracy and guidance if the earlier soln used a INS and GPS to fly through a set of waypoints like a aircraft does.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2989
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 28 Jul 2010 19:40

TERCOM was basic, used altitude of terrain and the missile flew X meters above that altitude.

DSMAC used photographic images taken by, say, MiG-25 or U-2 flights for terminal homing. Useless in smoke/cloudy conditions.

SCAN is much advanced. A high resolution radar image is taken by RISAT-2/Heron/Searcher and Brahmos compares it for terminal homing.

Singha – feeding and comparing the SAR the flightpath will involve too much work for the computer and will require loads of memory. The excess weight would have cut into the fuel/warhead. INS + GPS coordinates is way simpler. Given our rapid progress in space tech, it’s a matter of time before IRNSS becomes operational.

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby David Siegel » 28 Jul 2010 20:39

Not Sure if posted Earlier. I could have posted this on Military Multi-Media Thread, but felt this is the right place. Mod please shift this post if it is inappropriate one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajgHw2Aae-0

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2925
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby abhik » 29 Jul 2010 02:31

nrshah wrote:I was just going thru earlier reports of Akash Orders and Approval for MK 2 version...
I found payload of Akash very high compared to other SAM of the class... At 60kg it is almost twice as compared to other SAM

If I am not wrong the reason Akash will necessarily need a larger warhead is that it does not have a seeker, so the error in its position wrt the target will be greater.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2413
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 29 Jul 2010 03:19

One of drawbacks of command guidance as range increases the missile hit ratio against fast moving target greatly diminishes. DRDO should incorporate SAR or Active radar guidance if it plans to increase its range to 75 km+. 700 kg version of AAD would make the ideal Akash MK 2.

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby darshan » 29 Jul 2010 08:52

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=LAN
The decision comes within a month of media reports that Pakistan had included the Javelin on its wish list of U.S. weapons it wants to purchase. Senior Indian Defence Ministry officials had favored buying Israeli-made Spike ATGMs until those reports.


Any other confirmation?

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 518
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pralay » 03 Aug 2010 12:14

i was reading comments here
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/07/14/indian_aip_sub_order/

and one of the comments(fourth comment from bottom) reads

The Indian FBF warhead is about 100-150kg giving 20kT. The unique warhead design WAS COPIED later and were seen in US warhead designs.


is that true ? or just a hype?

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3647
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Neela » 03 Aug 2010 13:04

sameer_shelavale wrote:i was reading comments here
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/07/14/indian_aip_sub_order/

and one of the comments(fourth comment from bottom) reads

The Indian FBF warhead is about 100-150kg giving 20kT. The unique warhead design WAS COPIED later and were seen in US warhead designs.


is that true ? or just a hype?



IIRC , Arun_S mentioned this in BRF. Can anyone back this up?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 Aug 2010 13:47

^^In that case if the volume allows, we can mount it on the Brahmos and Nirbhay. That would be "Sone pe Suhaga" combo.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 518
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pralay » 03 Aug 2010 21:35

i found another very old but interesting article
Pokhran II : Chemical Engineers' Contributions
Pokhran II : Chemical Engineers' Contributions
Submitted by Mr. Rajdip Bandyopadhyay (May 13, 1998)

Amid the recent incident of nuclear bomb blasts, it is interesting to note the following excerpt, which appeared in Janes' - the comprehensive missile sourcebook, referred widely for trade and development in missile technology. Importantly, this appeared 4 months earlier and showcases India's potential towards making a fusion (Hydrogen) bomb. That what happened now, 4 months later, is indeed what had been predicted in the following report, is for all of us to see.

The reason I want you to read the article is, it involves a success story of Indian scientists, and indeed of a group of Chemical Engineers at BARC. They have developed a very low cost method of producing gaseous Tritium, which apparently is used in thermonuclear weapons like hydrogen bomb. Specifically, the team developed a hydrophobic catalyst which produces enriched tritium gas from heavy water, the latter being a by-product from nuclear reactor coolants and is abundant in India.

India thus possesses a very cheap and easy source of tritium, critical for nuclear weapons, which beats the Americans hands down in terms of the production method and costs. And this is indigeneous technology, starting from producing tritium to finally recovering an enriched gas-stream through a cascaded sequence of 3 multicomponent distillation units, comprising of 240 stages!

Regards,
Rajdip.


TRITIUM BREAKTHROUGH BRINGS INDIA CLOSER TO AN H-BOMB ARSENAL
Source: Janes Intelligence Review, January 1998

Nestled between the nuclear capabilities of China and the nuclear aspirations of Pakistan, India would seem to be in an unenviable strategic position. As T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj reports, however, a breakthrough by Indian scientists in the economical production of tritium may have tipped the strategic scales in New Delhi's Favour.

The importance of tritium as a strategic material in the creation of thermonuclear weaponry, given the insignificance of its other uses, cannot be overstressed. Its importance becomes even more apparent when one considers the major leap from the ability to manufacture fission weaponry to the capacity to build a thermonuclear weapon like a hydrogen bomb. It is within this context that the pioneering work in extracting highly enriched tritium conducted by scientists at India's Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) assumes significance. In this area at least, Indian scientists have reason to cock a snook at the USA. While the USA had stopped producing tritium by about 1988 due to safety reasons and ageing facilities, the Indian breakthrough underscores the fact that tritium can now be produced at a fraction of the estimated US$ 7 billion needed to produce the isotope at current costs using the accelerator process, as was done in the USA. The Indian scientists have managed to extract, highly enriched tritium from heavy water used in power reactors. The advantage of the technology developed by BARC is that it assumes heavy water as the moderator in power reactors when most of those in the West (including Russia) - with the exception of Canada - use light water. The other advantage is a short gestation period; the Indian tritium facility takes less than two years for completion. This is not to say that India has already secretly developed the H-Bomb, but the very fact that tritium, according to all available indications, is now being stockpiled puts India in a comfortable position in terms of nuclear deterrence, given the nuclear ambitions of Pakistan and the already - nuclear China.

On the trail of Indian Tritium

It was an innocuous paragraph at the end of a recently published paper on detritiation that let the cat out of the bag. The paper appeared in a book entitled Heavy Water- Properties, Production and Analysis, which was authored by two BARC scientists, Sharad M. Dave and Himangshu K Sadhukhan, with a Mexican scientist, Octavio A Novaro. On p461 of the work, it says the following:

The Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Bombay, India, also having developed a wetproof catalyst for LPCE liquid phase catalytic exchange, has employed it for detritiation. A pilot plant based on LPCE cryogenic distillation with about 90 per cent tritium removal from heavy water has been commissioned and is under experimental evaluation. Reportedly, this facility seems to be the only operating LPCE-based detritiation facility in the world. A commercial detritiation plant based on this process is being set up at one of their nuclear power stations.

According to BARC scientists, the new technology is aimed at lowering the tritium content in heavy water circulating around the moderator circuit. They argue that the project is being executed to prevent the many health hazards associated with the leakage of tritium from reactors. When asked what is exactly being done to the highly radioactive tritium so recovered, the scientists refuse to talk - even under conditions of anonymity. When pressed, some ventured to comment that a scenario in which the recovered tritium is being stockpiled for strategic purposes cannot be ruled out.

Curiously, there seems to exist some confusion regarding how classified the project is, but scientists at the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC), the government controlled organization that constructs and runs India's commercial power reactors, remain tight-lipped on the entire issue. Both A Sanatkumar and C Surendar, group directors at NPC, said the same thing: "We are unable to understand what you are talking about. There is no such project at Kalpakkam".

When the author contacted the managing director's officers said: "Please don't ask anything about the detritiation plant. We have been asked not to talk about it". However, there was no categorical denial of such a project being at the implementation stage. Incidentally, some time ago, the NPC management announced that one of the power reactors at Kalpakkam near Madras in southern India would be opened to research activities. According to highly placed sources, the commercial version of the pilot plant is taking shape at Kalpakkam. Recently, labour trouble hit the plant with the workers striking for nearly a month because of alleged high levels of radioactivity. Employees working in the station are still puzzled as to why their dosimeter readings have increased in recent times. Dr. Rajagopalan Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), evaded probing questions relating to the project. When asked persistently, he admitted: "Yes, there is a pilot plant for detritiation of heavy water in BARC" Asked whether the project is meant for stockpiling tritium, he replied: "No Comment". Also refusing to comment when asked about the project was former AEC chief P K lyengar, one of the pioneers of India's 1974 fission bomb experiment.

With eight operating Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) at Kalpakkam, Rawatbhatta, Narora and Kakrapar plus more to come in future, India has struck a gold mine in tritium production, as the BARC pilot plant can be implemented at all of these power stations. Scientists say that the size of the commercial plant would be just two or three times the size of the pilot plant. According to technical estimates, 2400 curies of tritium could be produced for every MW of electricity produced in heavy water reactors. Since, unlike fission bombs, fusion bombs have no critical size, bombs of various intensities could be fabricated using tritium. Fusion bombs require an ambient temperature of 100 million 0C to overcome the Coulomb Repulsion Barrier (CRB) which prevents lighter atoms from coming together - meaning that fission bombs are a prerequisite for detonating fusion, bombs. India first demonstrated its capability to explode fission bombs in 1974 in the deserts of Pokhran in Northwest India. Under the circumstances, the inference is inescapable: that the breakthrough in BARC puts India on the road of self-sufficiency in terms of strategic materials for defence purposes. It is another matter that Indian scientists are loath to call it 'production' of tritium, but instead choose to talk of 'detritiation'. "Look, our intention is not to produce tritium," said a senior scientist directly involved with the pilot detritiation plant at BARC. "Our aim is to lower the tritium content in the heavy water, which gets contaminated after fission and neutron capture by deuterium atoms. If tritium comes out as a by-product, what can we do about it?" Asked what was to be done with the tritium so obtained, the scientist just smiled.

Tritium

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3 years, meaning that 5.5 per cent of tritium will decay into helium-3 every year. Deuterium, another isotope of hydrogen, along with the elementary gas itself, is stable and non-radioactive. Tritium decays and is converted into a non-radioactive form of helium.

Although tritium is present naturally in the environment, this amount is too small for practical recovery. Therefore, tritium required for strategic purposes has to be produced artificially, and there are two ways to do this, both involving nuclear reactions with neutrons: in the first method, neutrons are made to strike a target of lithium or aluminum metal, which gives tritium and other by-products; the second method involves a neutron reaction with helium-3 which gives tritium and hydrogen as by-products.

The first method is widely used an was employed for several years at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in the USA before it was shut down in 1988. The production of tritium requires the generation of energetic neutrons, the source of which can be either power reactors or accelerators. In reactors, neutrons are produced as a result of fission, while in accelerators they occur as a result of spallation, where protons strike a metallic target and 'kick off' neutrons from the metal. Tritium finds peripheral use in medical diagnostics, but it is mainly used in the construction of hydrogen bombs and to boost the yield of both fission and thermonuclear weapons. Contained in removable and refillable reservoirs in nuclear arsenals, it boosts the efficiency of the nuclear materials. Although no official data is available on inventory amounts of tritium.

each thermonuclear warhead is said to contain 4 g of the isotope. However, neutron bombs designed to release more radiation will require 10-30 g of tritium, according to a status report prepared by the US Department of Energy's Science Policy Research Division and an assessment made by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Maryland, USA.

Authoritative US reports put the USA's total tritium production since 1955 at 225 kg. After decay, it is now left with 75 kg of tritium, which is sufficient to take the country through the first quarter of the next millennium.

Even in low levels, tritium has been linked to developmental problems, reproductive problems, genetic and neurological abnormalities and other health problems. Additionally, there is evidence of adverse health effects on populations living near tritium facilities. Tritium contamination has been reported at the Savannah River site in ground water soil from operational releases and accidents. No figures are available relating to the Indian stockpile of tritium, however. The pilot plant at BARC was set up, according to well-placed sources in the department, in 1992.

India's Breakthrough

India has now acquired a unique place in the annals of tritium production. Lacking the 'big money' to go in for capital-intensive methods, India's economic position - combined with the hostile attitude it faced from the West following the country's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Fissile Material cut-off Treaty - has taught Indian scientists to rely on economically viable indigenous methods. They therefore decided to extract tritium from moderator heavy water in power reactors, which is plentiful. This year India exported 100 tons of heavy water to South Korea.

India's three-stage nuclear planning has come in handy for the project: in the first stage Indian power reactors use natural uranium; the second stage employs fast breeder reactors that will use plutonium from the first stage; finally, the third phase aims at using thorium, since India has abundant thorium reserves in the beach sands of Kerala and Orrisa. The first stage uses reactors moderated by heavy water, and it is in these reactors that Indian scientists have struck a gold mine in tritium production.

The tritium build-up in these reactors increases with the number of years of plant operation. The pilot plant is called the detritiation plant because the process involves lowering tritium levels in heavy water, but the fact remains that the by-product is highly enriched tritium. The reason why BARC developed new technology was to reduce radioactive levels by lowering the tritium content in heavy water. The department set up a pilot plant to achieve this and struck pay dirt: enriched tritium at low cost which needed only additional detritiation plants ton be added to the country's already-available nuclear infrastructure. The BARC technology is all the more laudable in that it is 100 per cent indigenous and the first of its kind anywhere in the world, according to experts preferring to remain anonymous. Scientists at BARC's Chemical Engineering Group recently developed a wet-proof catalyst for LPCE (the process that yields highly enriched tritium from heavy water), but they refrained from talking about the defence implications of the project. They have called the facility a detritiation plant to avoid charges of stockpiling a strategic raw material crucial in the production of thermonuclear weapons.

The Process

The presence of tritium in heavy water has been a major concern of reactor engineers in India for a long time. During the operation of a PHWR, tritium is produced as a result of fission and irradiation of reactor components with neutrons. This tritium remains in the fuel and later passes into the effluents in the fuel reprocessing plants. The BARC pilot plant produces tritium using moderator heavy water, where tritium is produced due to the capture of neutrons by deuterium atoms in the water. This reaction, as reported in scientific literature, is known to yield maximum tritium.

Although any method employed in the production and enrichment of isotopes can also be used in the case of tritium, the BARC scientists' choice of process was governed by safe handling and economic reasons. BARC scientists first worked with the water distillation and electrolytic method, which proved to be risky and inefficient. This produces tritium in its most hazardous form: liquid. They instead settled for the method of chemical exchange followed by cryogenic distillation. In this method the tritium is in a liquid phase only for a short time during the chemical exchange process, with the final product collected in gaseous form and kept in double containment to ensure safety. This method yields 90 per cent enriched tritium. It is worth noting that weapons also use tritium in its gaseous phase.

The Catalyst

The most important hurdle in producing tritium by this method is finding a suitable catalyst for the process because heavy water from the moderator and pure deuterium gas have to pass through the column containing the catalyst. Besides, the exchange reactions of deuterium between hydrogen and water require a slow and suitable catalyst, taking into account the slow nature of these reactions. Nickel coated by chromium, platinum or other noble metals supported on silica or activated charcoal have been found effective for vapour phase exchange reactions, but BARC's exchange reactions occur in the liquid phase and require some other species of catalyst. All the catalysts mentioned above lose their activity in contact with liquid water and prevent hydrogen from reaching them. Indian scientists have overcome this problem by imparting hydrophobicity to the catalysts. Since water in the liquid form wets and contaminates the catalyst, the suitable solution was a wet proof catalyst, which is what the BARC scientists opted for. A number of technical snags associated with the poor choice of catalyst have been eliminated, and experiments conducted to check the performance of the catalyst have shown positive results. Although the department undertook this work in the early 1970s, it was only recently that they perfected the technology.

Design

The pilot plant's equipment is indigenously designed. Scientists, have taken into consideration various aspects of handling inflammable gases like hydrogen, deuterium and the radioactive tritium. Pipelines, fitting-valves and other equipment are made of special steel, all suitable for cryogenic conditions. The entire cryogenic part of the plants is housed inside a vacuum-insulated enclosure, which provides thermal insulation for its components. The column sections have been insulated with mylar to prevent any cold leak.

Being a multi-component distillation system, it is not simple to operate. The difficulties encountered include the decay heat of tritium (associated with the decay of tritium into helium-3), which would evaporate all the liquid. The pressure drop is minimized, however, and temperature variations are kept to a minimum.

Scientists from the group say the philosophy of the plant's operation is based on fail-safe conditions. The operation of the entire distillation column takes place at atmospheric pressure and an ambulant temperature of -268 0C. The whole plant has two sections: a low tritium activity section and a high tritium activity section (see graphic). The scientists involved say that nearly 240 stages are involved in the tritium enrichment process, and so it has to be carried out in three-stage cascade distillation units. The deuterium-tritium gas, which emerges from the second stage, is 100 per cent enriched. After this the tritium is separated suing an equilibrator, with the condensed product serving as the reflex for the third stage. The highly concentrated tritium is drawn off periodically from the bottom of the cryogenic column and immobilized in a matrix of metal tritride, which would be compact, safe and stable at normal temperature. The gas can be recovered at any time by heating the metal tritride. At this stage the pure tritium is ready for stockpiling.


Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sid » 03 Aug 2010 21:44

Prithvi SSM BCES (Blast Cum Earth Shock) warhead in full glory.

Image

courtesy http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/

Prithvi Warhead from BR's archive DefExpo 2010 viewtopic.php?p=825202

Image

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2010 02:23

sameer_shelavale wrote:The Indian FBF warhead is about 100-150kg giving 20kT. The unique warhead design WAS COPIED later and were seen in US warhead designs.


is that true ? or just a hype?


Where was this warhead design copied from? Was it on the internet? In a book in a library?
After the Americans copied it (their thousand nuclear tests presumably being inferior to one Indian test), did they then put it on the internet for comparison?

Boss, the people who really know about nuclear weapon design don't talk about it. They certainly don't talk to people who have never seen a bomb but are always ready to draw one on the internet.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 04 Aug 2010 04:24

There is a reason why India got a NUKEEELAR deal from the Sher Khan!!! With or without the uranium, India was all set to produce the MW power they needed by using the Thorium based reactors, which India has in abundance... This clearly means that there is no stopping it, unless of-course you stop that process and make India dependent on the supply of Uranium from other countries, while identifying their existing NUKE plants and making BILLIONS of dollars in return!!! WIN WIN ONLY for the Sher Khan!!!

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2010 04:41

India was all set to produce the MW power they needed by using the Thorium based reactors, which India has in abundance


It will be decades before India can rely on Thorium reactors. This assumes the technology actually pans out. It could just as well fail.
Do you think it will be easy to mine Thorium? Have you any idea of the opposition to mining the beach sands?
Thorium is not fissile. Where would the neutrons come from? Does India have enough Plutonium for this breeding?

Have you actually read the nuke deal text? Where in the deal does it prevent India from using Thorium technology? Where does it prevent construction of reactors?

We can continue this in the Indian nuclear thread if you want. It is OT here.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 04 Aug 2010 05:30

OT Here, but a last mute from my side, where did I say that India is prohibited from using Thorium tech?? or for that matter construction of reactors??? It is well known that if you have access to technology that you are denied, funds will dry up (or atleast be on the back burner) for thorium R&D, yet does not indicate that it will STOP India from doing so, the rest is the will of a country/politicians, however OT for this thread. I don't wish to discuss this further as I don't see any point in discussion on the amount of opposition India would face if it went ahead with mining Thorium or for that matter mining it would be a walk in the park! Be realistic, having it in abundance does not indicates a ready product, (think mines need to be explored and mined) successful development and demonstration on a small MW plant using Thorium was/is enough to convince that the capability DOES exists, how feasible, I'm sure your thorough analysis of the Nuke Deal Text would come in handy here.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3647
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Neela » 04 Aug 2010 10:53

Gerard wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:The Indian FBF warhead is about 100-150kg giving 20kT. The unique warhead design WAS COPIED later and were seen in US warhead designs.


is that true ? or just a hype?


Where was this warhead design copied from? Was it on the internet? In a book in a library?
After the Americans copied it (their thousand nuclear tests presumably being inferior to one Indian test), did they then put it on the internet for comparison?

Boss, the people who really know about nuclear weapon design don't talk about it. They certainly don't talk to people who have never seen a bomb but are always ready to draw one on the internet.



I think what the poster meant is the RV. Arun mentioned that the RV was seen later in the US designs.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nrshah » 04 Aug 2010 17:31

Recently, a go ahead has been given for development of Akash Mk2...Most reports suggest it to have increased range + Active seeker...

I was just wandering how to increase the range without increase in the weight of missile (at 720 kg, it is already heavy)

The following came to me as the probable methods without adding anything new to the missile...
1- Better Propulsion technology (Drawn out of experience from Brahmos / Barak 2 / Astra / Nirbhay / Shourya and Newer Agni variants
2 - Better Metallurgy
3 - Reducing the payload size - I had already mentioned few post on the same seem but seems to be missed
4 - Making it two stage - I dont know if this makes sense but i feel with one stage jettisoned, the weight of the missile will be reduced making its range longer although it might be costly
5 - Making it canister launched similar to Shourya / K15 where gas generated in canister ejects the missile and pushes it to certain altitude --- where drag will be less so less energy required...

I feel a combination of above factors can lead to increase in range of the missile or atleast reduction in weight...

Besides, i feel we should be looking to make it vertically launched banking upon the experience from Bramhos and Maitri (VLS MICA - as per recent reports, DRDO and MBDA has been sharing details since last couple of years)

Also, a radar guided missile with say terminal IIR seeker (based an Nag variant) can be a very effective and probably wont alert a MWS of the enemy aircraft...

Gurus, Please enlighten and also suggests any other method or technique to increase the range/reduce the weight and above suggestions with respect to feasibility and operational utility

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Aug 2010 17:42

most longer range missiles do have a 2nd stage which is essentially a modified AAM like amraam or mica.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2738
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby JTull » 04 Aug 2010 19:02

Don't know why you guys are so pessimistic. A commercial 500MWe fast breeder reactor is under construction already! If there were no readily available Thorium what were they planning to put in this reactor?

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2010 09:08

Agni II to be tested in September

A “totally new missile,” called Agni II – is to be tested in September from the Wheeler Island, off the Orissa coast.

Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Agni II – has two stages and both are powered by solid propellants. “It has several advanced technologies,” sources in the DRDO said.


This seems to be the new missile developed under the leadership of Dr Tesse Thomas

Probably a new RV and an all composite casing for both stages.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 06 Aug 2010 09:12

Austin wrote:
A “totally new missile,” called Agni II


The totally original name is totally impressive :D

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2010 10:10

shiv wrote:The totally original name is totally impressive :D


Shiv it is possible that once they complete the series of test on this new Agni 2 , it will take over the series production from the present Agni-2 and hence a new name is not needed besides calling it advanced Agni-2.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby D Roy » 06 Aug 2010 13:56

This seems akin to the Agni -2AT that used to be discussed in the BR missiles section.

arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby arya » 06 Aug 2010 19:46

Gurus give some Prakash on "Pandubbi prachepit Agni-III"

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2010 21:17

D Roy wrote:This seems akin to the Agni -2AT that used to be discussed in the BR missiles section.


Yes with a new 1.2 m dia 1st/2nd stage and a high beta Agni-3 like RV is what Arun had predicted.

Lets see what comes up with advanced Agni.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 06 Aug 2010 23:48

WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF THAT SMERCH!!!
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out defective import of the Russian SMERCH MBRLs (Multi Barrel Rocket launcher) system, failure in its launch vehicles and its sub-systems, failure in data transmission system and deficiencies in communication systems.
The CAG today pulled up the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its report tabled in Parliament, saying that the import of the systems in two different contracts, amounting to Rs 2633 crore, was delayed resulting in non-operationalization of the system.

Two contracts were signed by the MoD in 2005 and 2007 with Russia's Rosoboronexport for 42 SMERCH systems, worth Rs 2633 crore. The entire system comprises a launch vehicle, transloader vehicle, command and staff vehicle, meteorological support complex vehicle and workshop repair vehicle. The systems under the first contract were supplied in 2008 and against the second contract in 2009.

The first contract consignment was inducted in 2007 July and underwent practice firing, when it was revealed that the system had critical defects in its sub-systems.

Other failures, points out CAG, were in the launch vehicles, which act as a lifting and balancing mechanisms. This was reported out within the warranty period. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was asked to replace the used up spare parts, which were taken up to attend to the deficiency.

The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.

Eleven data transmission equipment, each costing Rs 25 lakh, failed during trials, which was brought to the notice of the manufacturer. Similary the radio sets in the communication system were found defective.


The MoD assured CAG in November 2009 that the defects and failures have been taken up with the manufacturer and an assurance has been given to them that a solution would be found soon.

The defects in the sub-systems have delayed the operational induction of the weapon system and have also delayed the procurement of logistics support equipment and subsequent formulation of war establishment. It also led to damage of four rockets leading to a loss of 2.36 crore.
Last edited by Craig Alpert on 07 Aug 2010 00:06, edited 1 time in total.

Tamang
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Nai Dilli, Bharatvarsh

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Tamang » 07 Aug 2010 00:01

arya wrote:Gurus give some Prakash on "Pandubbi prachepit Agni-III"


Pandubbi = Submarine
Prakshepit = Launched

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 Aug 2010 00:50

Craig Alpert wrote:WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF THAT SMERCH!!!
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out defective import of the Russian SMERCH MBRLs (Multi Barrel Rocket launcher) system, failure in its launch vehicles and its sub-systems, failure in data transmission system and deficiencies in communication systems.
The CAG today pulled up the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its report tabled in Parliament, saying that the import of the systems in two different contracts, amounting to Rs 2633 crore, was delayed resulting in non-operationalization of the system.

Two contracts were signed by the MoD in 2005 and 2007 with Russia's Rosoboronexport for 42 SMERCH systems, worth Rs 2633 crore. The entire system comprises a launch vehicle, transloader vehicle, command and staff vehicle, meteorological support complex vehicle and workshop repair vehicle. The systems under the first contract were supplied in 2008 and against the second contract in 2009.

The first contract consignment was inducted in 2007 July and underwent practice firing, when it was revealed that the system had critical defects in its sub-systems.

Other failures, points out CAG, were in the launch vehicles, which act as a lifting and balancing mechanisms. This was reported out within the warranty period. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was asked to replace the used up spare parts, which were taken up to attend to the deficiency.

The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.

Eleven data transmission equipment, each costing Rs 25 lakh, failed during trials, which was brought to the notice of the manufacturer. Similary the radio sets in the communication system were found defective.


The MoD assured CAG in November 2009 that the defects and failures have been taken up with the manufacturer and an assurance has been given to them that a solution would be found soon.

The defects in the sub-systems have delayed the operational induction of the weapon system and have also delayed the procurement of logistics support equipment and subsequent formulation of war establishment. It also led to damage of four rockets leading to a loss of 2.36 crore.


where are our forum resident Russo-philes ? I cannot imagine what all we'd have heard from the likes of Philip et al if this was related to the Pinaka system.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Surya » 07 Aug 2010 04:20

our resident Russophiles are busy trying to get the MRCA to mig 35, the transports to mythical Russian lines, etc

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 07 Aug 2010 06:08

AND IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER!!!!
OFFICIAL CAG REPORT ON SMERCH Multi Barrel Rocket Launcher System

Procurement of low capability missiles- MILAN 2T IN SPECIFIC :!:
Outdated Missiles of 1970s vintage valuing Rs 587.02 crore were contracted in 2008 for procurement from BDL by compromising the Army’s requirement, though the third generation missiles are available globally.


Non replacement/rectification of imported ammunition
Indigenous and imported ammunition valuing Rs 273.75 crore reported defective was awaiting repairs for over five to eight years. Although the imported ammunition was still under warranty, Army HQ did not make efforts to get it rectified/replaced from the supplier under warranty.


Procurement of defective Oxygen Masks
Despite being aware that the oxygen masks offered by a foreign vendor have serious defects, the Ministry did not ensure that the defects are rectified by the vendor before effecting supply to the Army. This resulted in purchase of defective masks valuing Rs 5.06 crore which have been returned by the Army Aviation Units on account of difficulties being faced by the pilots in inhaling oxygen from the cylinders.


AND MUCH MORE!!!!!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8240
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 07 Aug 2010 09:04

Regarding Smerch,

If this was happning with Pinaka then the system would neved have been acquired. and be made to undego trials after trials in order to demostrate that all the systems work.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24010
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 07 Aug 2010 11:19

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Agni II to be tested in September

A “totally new missile,” called Agni II – is to be tested . . .Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Agni II – has two stages


The totally original name is totally impressive :D

Don't confuse with 'Agni II'. It is 'Agni II -'.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 07 Aug 2010 11:59

Pratyush wrote:Regarding Smerch,

If this was happning with Pinaka then the system would neved have been acquired. and be made to undego trials after trials in order to demostrate that all the systems work.


If this had happenend with Pinaka then all hell would break loose.

All the arguments of how DRDO is @#$$% and OFs are &%^%$$# (actually they are) would flood the newpaper.

But... But... But..

How can phoren goods be bad ?

And how can Russian goods be bad ? No No No. Not possible. Surely our IA / IAF / IN do not know how to operate / maintain these systems.


K

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10057
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sum » 07 Aug 2010 14:53

Other failures, points out CAG, were in the launch vehicles, which act as a lifting and balancing mechanisms. This was reported out within the warranty period. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was asked to replace the used up spare parts, which were taken up to attend to the deficiency.
The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.

Wow, as damning as it gets. Wonder where was the IA's famous "will not induct if not perfect else people die" attitude when it came to this ( not so cheap) Russkie maal?

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby K Mehta » 07 Aug 2010 17:14

First pdf file of the report
1.12 Analysis of Army Capital Expenditure
The savings were mainly due to allocation of more funds, non-payment for PINAKA due to non-completion of Joint Receipt inspection

Interesting indeed!

arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby arya » 07 Aug 2010 21:30

Tamang wrote:
arya wrote:Gurus give some Prakash on "Pandubbi prachepit Agni-III"


Pandubbi = Submarine
Prakshepit = Launched


i know that, but i want to know the status of Agni -III SL. :wink:

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Aug 2010 21:49

and this was supposed for be for rugged and proven Rus design of the Smerch TELAR albeit bolted onto Tatra from MAZ.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 07 Aug 2010 22:36

arya wrote:
i know that, but i want to know the status of Agni -III SL. :wink:


Going by the trend of Sagarika/K-15 saga, one can expect IN will not be trigger happy in letting their project known to public, irrespective of whatever work being done on that.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 07 Aug 2010 22:42

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Agni II to be tested in September

A “totally new missile,” called Agni II – is to be tested . . .Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Agni II – has two stages


The totally original name is totally impressive :D


It will thus fill the gap between Agni II, which can cover about 2,500 km, and Agni III that has a range of about 3,500 km. Agni I can hit enemy targets 700 km away.


Obviously, it is a different missile from Agni-II, as it is suppose to be filling the gap between II and III and further it wont replace Agni-II. And i guess, we can expect it to be MIRV capable. JMT.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 07 Aug 2010 22:44

sum wrote:
Other failures, points out CAG, were in the launch vehicles, which act as a lifting and balancing mechanisms. This was reported out within the warranty period. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was asked to replace the used up spare parts, which were taken up to attend to the deficiency.
The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.

Wow, as damning as it gets. Wonder where was the IA's famous "will not induct if not perfect else people die" attitude when it came to this ( not so cheap) Russkie maal?


I guess you are missing the point here. You wont bite the hand that feeds. :P


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests