Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 25 Feb 2012 16:04

IMO , Shaurya does not enjoy the advantages of a conventional cruise missile in terms of low altitude cruising and range but at mach 6, its principle advantage is speed and slight advantage over brahmos for range.

But as a sea launched missile it seems a bit of a neither here nor there weapon system. As a pak centric cruise missile it does not offer any stealth advantage over short distances and can be confused for a ballistic missile , neither does It work as a anti ship missile and is too short legged to be effective china .

Someone do explain as to what is the utility of sub launched shaurya.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2012 16:32

take a look at Arun_S calculations http://www.indiaresearch.org/Shourya_Missile.pdf and his range vs payload estimates. the 750km is the usual humble yindu psyops. this thing can throw a 300kg warhead out to 1500+km. thats about the range of the nuclear tipped tomahawk SLCM with the chi chi 100kg W80 warhead for 'tactical' nuclear strikes....pretty much all of US SSNs will have some of these bad boys http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.html

@ mach6 sustained cruise, ofcoure its speed is less than the Mach10 a IRBM RV would manage at that distance but such a IRBM would be easier to detect by ABM radar and presently incapable of going into Arihant until the 'big missile' of arihant comes online. so its not as if we have a choice there unless someone talks of fitting the Agni1 into Arihant..it was never designed for cansister launch.

vs the 750km K15, Shourya would have twice the range presumably at nearly the same RV velocity.

so yes the idea does have some merit - in a nuclear role.

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 25 Feb 2012 16:44

Ivanev wrote:Interesting piece of news here, could cause significant amount of heart palpitation!

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... le/385952/

This is 2 year old new article. What is it doing here now?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2012 16:49

measured using google earth:

from positions just north of brunei, sulu sea in philipines and the deep water trench due east of andaman islands the distance to hainan island is 1800km

more tellingly, from a position due south of bangladesh and north of andamans, near myanmar the distances to chengdu, chonqing and yunnan are all within 1800km.

to guangzhou, shenzhen and HK it is 2000km, with upstream cities in the pearl river delta a little shorter in.

so quite clearly a range of military and industrial potential targets are in reach if a 1800km range missile and a working albeit modest yield n-warhead were to be deployed.

the bigger warhead and MIRV would have to await the K4 though - perhaps in a decade.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Feb 2012 20:24

Mission Success - by T.S.Subramanian in Frontline on AAD-05

The AAD-05 used a longer range seeker to inch close to the intruder and “kill it in a direct hit”. . . . “The mission was done in the deployment mode, close to the final user [Army] configuration…. Its success confirms that the country is ready to take it to the next phase of production and induction.” . . . The latest success means that India can destroy in mid-flight Hatf and Ghauri ballistic missiles coming from Pakistan. . . . The new elements in this mission included a seeker with a longer range than the seeker used in the earlier interceptor. This took the interceptor close to the attacker. A radio proximity fuse erupted close to the target, ensuring that the warhead hit the target and killed it.

A DRDO missile technologist said that “the interceptor can be inducted straightway” into the Army. There were consecutive successes with a near hit and direct hits. Directional warheads, which exploded in all directions and pulverised the intruder, were used.

An informed source in the DRDO said that although the interceptor used in this mission was capable of intercepting missiles coming from 300 to 2,000 km away, India needed ship-based platforms for launching interceptors far away from the shore. “We are planning to realise such platforms in the near future,” he said.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 26 Feb 2012 22:38

SSridhar wrote:
An informed source in the DRDO said that although the interceptor used in this mission was capable of intercepting missiles coming from 300 to 2,000 km away, India needed ship-based platforms for launching interceptors far away from the shore. “We are planning to realise such platforms in the near future,” he said.

If I remember correctly we had this major debate on BR as to why we don't need ship based assets for BMD. The above statement seems to contradict that belief

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2012 08:10

it would offer some flexibility over land bases which are difficult to sustain and resupply in say kutch or along the andaman chain.
just position a ship with TBMD missiles in that region.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2012 08:39

Sea based deterrents off the coast would also help against missiles being launched from the sea. Pakistan's "Third leg" will be on ships, and the ocean is also a good route for a Chines missile attack.

Will · Post by **Will** » 27 Feb 2012 11:28

The new elements in this mission included a seeker with a longer range than the seeker used in the earlier interceptor. This took the interceptor close to the attacker. A radio proximity fuse erupted close to the target, ensuring that the warhead hit the target and killed it. The MCC, the LCC, the radars and the data links functioned in unison. The mission proved, said Saraswat, that the system's design was good, the software was robust and the radars were reliable.

Well that sets to rest the HTK debate. I guess we have a long way to go before we master that tech.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2012 11:57

what is the advantage of HTK over a warhead? lighter weight permitting greater intercept altitude and speed in same form factor or same intercept params using a smaller missile?

I hope its not a khan thing being anointed as great just because khan does it

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 27 Feb 2012 12:33

Ajay Sharma wrote:
SSridhar wrote: An informed source in the DRDO said that although the interceptor used in this mission was capable of intercepting missiles coming from 300 to 2,000 km away, India needed ship-based platforms for launching interceptors far away from the shore. “We are planning to realise such platforms in the near future,” he said.
If I remember correctly we had this major debate on BR as to why we don't need ship based assets for BMD. The above statement seems to contradict that belief

I wasn't part of the shipborne ABM debate - but my two cents nonetheless.

One, DRDO has been made solutions looking for a problem before. DRDO pushing for an shipborne interceptor doesn't necessarily imply that its needed for continental defense.

Two, A brigade sized expeditionary force off to fight the "half war" would appreciate a seaborne BMD asset watching its back, at least during the initial part of the operations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Feb 2012 21:53

Singha wrote:what is the advantage of HTK over a warhead? lighter weight permitting greater intercept altitude and speed in same form factor or same intercept params using a smaller missile?

I hope its not a khan thing being anointed as great just because khan does it

In a HTK missile the entire payload impacts incoming warhead taking advantage of momentum which will destroy it.

In proximity fused warhead there is potential for near-misses due to delays even in milli secs. Also incoming could be fused to go off if it detects a near miss.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Feb 2012 23:30

Singha wrote:take a look at Arun_S calculations http://www.indiaresearch.org/Shourya_Missile.pdf and his range vs payload estimates. the 750km is the usual humble yindu psyops. this thing can throw a 300kg warhead out to 1500+km. thats about the range of the nuclear tipped tomahawk SLCM with the chi chi 100kg W80 warhead for 'tactical' nuclear strikes....pretty much all of US SSNs will have some of these bad boys http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.html.

The only issue I have with Arun's graph (& I had mentioned this in a comment to him when he was still with BRF) is that its a "theoretical" extrapolation. Unless you actually test Shourya over a 1500KM range, you dont know:

a) How its accuracy will behave at that range
b) Whether its airframe, sensors, RLG/INS etc can take the stresses & heat of re-entry at that range

I am willing to accept that for Shorya, this extrapolation might have some value because we have tested other missiles at 1500 KM+ ranges. So, we know something about materials, accuracies etc at 1500KM. But Arun's graphs show Agni's ranges beyond 5000KM for lighter payloads, which I have a problem accepting.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Feb 2012 23:35

measured using google earth:

from positions just north of brunei, sulu sea in philipines and the deep water trench due east of andaman islands the distance to hainan island is 1800km

more tellingly, from a position due south of bangladesh and north of andamans, near myanmar the distances to chengdu, chonqing and yunnan are all within 1800km.

to guangzhou, shenzhen and HK it is 2000km, with upstream cities in the pearl river delta a little shorter in.

so quite clearly a range of military and industrial potential targets are in reach if a 1800km range missile and a working albeit modest yield n-warhead were to be deployed.
+++++++++++++

A similar proposal was put up couple of years ago to attack targets in SE China by basing MKIs in A&N and fly over lighter Mynmar defenses by urs truely but was derided contemptously as not feasible on account of strong PRC missile defenses in SE China.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Feb 2012 23:36

I guess you don't believe in physics either?

The Agony's RV from day one was designed for velocities ~7km/sec based on Wings of Fire.
Please go read Dr Kalam's book.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Feb 2012 23:57

ramana wrote:I guess you don't believe in physics either?

The Agony's RV from day one was designed for velocities ~7km/sec based on Wings of Fire.
Please go read Dr Kalam's book.

Ramana: I have no problem with the physics - that's why I call the calculations theoretical. My question is one of engineering & certifying a system to perform under specified conditions.

Has Agni been tested at 7 KM/sec?

I have read Kalam's book by the way

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2012 01:22

We dont know and wont for a long time.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 28 Feb 2012 01:51

Prem Kumar wrote:My question is one of engineering & certifying a system to perform under specified conditions.

Has Agni been tested at 7 KM/sec?

As ramanaji says, we will never know

But the other part on certifying is easier to figure out - well, sort of. Arun_S-saar used to repeatedly hint at the altitude to which the cones are pushed up (before they arc down) by the whooshie-thingies, via his calculations on flight times etc. He also points out that "maximum tested range" might not be relevant (except to induce unwanted tuxedo-shiver) at that point, if it is just the matter of testing of the cones' integrity. Or some such.

HTK's biggest advantage seem to be in near-miss calculations. A second, backup interceptor do not have to deal with clutter caused by shrap of the first ones' warhead even if it is a total miss. The second can ROTFL at the first interceptor, before diving in for the catch and claim full credit.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 28 Feb 2012 13:15

Till A3, It was ok to underquote the range of our Misile systems. But when we are publicly speaking of testing A5 to "QUOTED" full range of 5000 Kms, what is the problem in testing a missile like Shaurya to its full range (around 1500 - 1750kms) rather than keeping it around 750Kms...

It was a past strategy and it was ok at that time considering max range of indian missiles was less, but now??

Will shaurya at 2000kms create more noice than A5 at 5000 Kms? I dont think so? Rather it will add more value to detterence when you adversaries know Indian boomers have missiles in range of 1500Kms to 2000 Kms rather than 750Kms. Given the distance details by Singha, it would add lot of value of PRC knows Shaurya has range to hit its major cities while sailing in safe and Sanitized water.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Feb 2012 13:37

I think they have some weird calculation dealing with the cost of a missile versus the damage done. Or some technical/strategic issue flying it with a smaller load.

Either ways, configuring or testing a missile with a reduced load with longer range is never publicly done/acknowledged. Even if this was done, no advantage letting public know.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Feb 2012 14:35

It is always better to keep the enemy guessing about true full capability-to complicate his life.For example,if he believes that a specific sub-launched missile aboard our ATVs/SSGNs have "X" range,when in fact the range is "2X",his anti-sub doctrine will be based upon our subs operating at a closer distance to his coastline,which will fail in time of crisis.

The IN must possess longer ranged sub-launched ICBMs on larger SSBNs than the ATV-1 size,so that we can operate them on patrols anywhere in the IOR or Pacific,complicating China's ability to moniiitor our SSBN's movements.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 28 Feb 2012 15:42

Philip wrote:...

The IN must possess longer ranged sub-launched ICBMs on larger SSBNs than the ATV-1 size,so that we can operate them on patrols anywhere in the IOR or Pacific,complicating China's ability to moniiitor our SSBN's movements.

Ahhh, therein lies the rub...

Because submarines must ply the seas submerged, they are shaped like cigars. The challenge is to launch a long-range missile from a cigar-shaped submarine; and this is done with thicker diameter missiles than one would prefer for launch from other platforms. Of necessity, this requires a submarine with large-diameter vertical launch tubes (yes, I know, the Russians have missiles that fire out the torpedo tubes, but none that are ICBM). Many such missile launch tubes would require a large submarine.............. as you have suggested.

The problem there is that larger submarines are much easier to track and destroy. I, for one, cheered when I read that the ATV Arihant would be as small as it is. This in itself is a tremendous aid in its survivability, and if such a small submarine can be packed with the right weapons load-out, certainly including some very fast and sophisticated missiles, conventionally-tipped or otherwise -- this is not something that any adversary can spare worry about.

In this era of widely networked sensors, large submarines are self-defeating, by virtue of their size, IMO. Large submarines can actually be observed from space-based satellites, which can detect the surface bulge of a large sub moving at speed underneath the waves. Very conceivably, a long-range maritime patrol aircraft has even better capabilities against submarines, because they have larger radar arrays and more on-board power than even large satellites.

When it comes to sumbarines, small and quiet means survivable, which is what you most want with the third leg of a nuclear triad. The (supposed)(Chinese) ability to shoot long distances so that they can hide in distant oceans, will not compute as a winning war strategy, particularly as ABM technologies mature and are progressively deployed.

By contrast, a small sub that can slip inside lines of defense and engage a variety of targets with both conventional and nuclear arms -- this is a much more fearsome and versatile fighting platform than large SSBN "Boomers".

JMT

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 28 Feb 2012 17:28

The smaller sub argument is very good for conventional subs but not so sure about nuclear subs which need to accommodate larger missiles with greater range and would have to be of a larger size. (unless one talks of reducing size of missile itself)

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 28 Feb 2012 17:54

DRDO Readies for K-15

The DRDO is preparing for twin tests of submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) K-15 from an underwater platform off the Andhra Pradesh coast. While the first test has been scheduled for March 4, the second test will be conducted anytime between March 16 and 19.
...
The indigenously built nuclear capable missile will be launched from a Pontoon (replica of a submarine) which is being readied under the sea.
...
“We are forced to use the pontoon as the launching platform as India does not have an operational submarine to test-fire such missiles. Though the advanced technology vehicle (ATV) INS Arihant has been developed, it is yet to be equipped with the K-15 missile. Missile tests from the submarine can be possible after the success of sea trials,” he said.
...
Developed by DRDO, K-15 has both the versions, SLBM and SLCM (submarine-launched cruise missile). <This is news to me>
...
After the K-15 tests, India will go for the much-awaited maiden test of 5,000-km range Agni-V missile, which has been scheduled for the third week of April.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2012 22:00

I dont understand the language being sued by the 'source'. Pontoon launch is need to proof the missile before being integrated with the submarine. Is it his argument that the missile is already proofed?

It would be nice if they learn to speak one thought in one sentecne and not mix up things. If they cant they should let the official spokesman speak!

BTW the description of K-15 is both an SLBM and SLCM confirms the dual mode of deployment for that vehicle.
- Ballistic and hypersonic glide mode.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 00:27

Hindu reports

A-V test soon

Agni V to be test-fired soon

P.Sunderrajan

It will have a range of 5,000 km and can carry a one-tonne nuclear war head

Agni V, the surface-to surface nuclear missile that is expected to give more teeth to India's deterrence programme, is likely to be test-fired for the first time in the last week of March or the first week of April from the Wheeler Island, off the coast of Odisha.

Disclosing this here on Monday, V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said the DRDO would conduct more test flights of the missile over the next one year. “This is a programme that is going on for the past two years. Another one year of testing will be involved [for fully developing the missile].”

Countries across the world have been keenly watching India's progress in developing this missile, which will have a range of 5,000 km and is capable of carrying a one-tonne nuclear war head. Weighing 50 tonnes, the 17.2-metre-long missile, with a diameter of two metres, will have three stages, all fired by solid fuel.

The picture:

OTH it could be the AIII for all we know!
Yep its AIII model.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 29 Feb 2012 00:51

I have read elsewhere that A5 has no vented interstage along with all 3 stages being composite motors, so that pic is likely A3.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Feb 2012 01:07

Awesome news on 1Tonne Nuke! Lets just hope it works. Scientists described it as a national mission. So they have thrown everything at this project. Lets hope all the hard work by our heroes pay off.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 29 Feb 2012 01:17

Nihat wrote:The smaller sub argument is very good for conventional subs but not so sure about nuclear subs which need to accommodate larger missiles with greater range and would have to be of a larger size. (unless one talks of reducing size of missile itself)

Please forgive me for asking a series of nested, rhetorical questions....

What type of sub-launched missile is harder to detect: 1) A large missile launched from mid-ocean, far away, that follows a predictable ballistic trajectory or; 2) A small missile launched from litoral waters, close in, that follows an extremely evasive flightpath? (Consider, large missiles launched mid-ocean are easiest to detect, and because they are launched from great distance, they also allow for a greater warning period. Moreover, such missiles follow a predictable ballistic trajectory, which is exactly what an ABM interceptor needs.)

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Feb 2012 01:18

Prem sir efficacy of our 200kt detergent is also guaranteed by physics onlee.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Feb 2012 08:16

ramana wrote:The picture:

OTH it could be the AIII for all we know!
Yep its AIII model.

I wonder, does the fact that the missile is sitting on top of a globe have any significance? Perhaps a message being sent out in typical Indian babudom style?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 09:37

If it really was the A-V then it would. But not AIII.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 29 Feb 2012 10:10

Look familiar?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 10:15

Yeah. Hindu did say it was a file photo. Guess they didn't know we are hard case wing-nuts of the IGMDP!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Feb 2012 10:56

ramana wrote: Is it his argument that the missile is already proofed?

Ramana, it is my understanding that the eighth and final test of K-15 was reportedly done in Nov. 2008

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Feb 2012 11:23

some of the K15 tests could be shourya tests as they have same look and size? does anyone have a pic of the K15?

what are the notches in multiple rings on the black RV section of A3?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 11:27

From my little knowledge those notches on the real article would be sources of aerodynamic flow disruptions. So most likely they are only on the dummy RV.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Feb 2012 11:29

I did a google search and could not locate a single pic of the K15 missile just drawings. defexpo pics of exposed shourya with pointy nose match drawings of k15.

imo the Shourya is the just the name of land based variant (lacks the gas generator) and otherwise K15 == Shourya?

btw why does shourya need a nosecone with puff thrusters like a angry bull? is is to swiftly turn the nose into a angled climb rather than depend on tailfin control(more drag) for that?

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 29 Feb 2012 14:04

Singha wrote:I did a google search and could not locate a single pic of the K15 missile just drawings. defexpo pics of exposed shourya with pointy nose match drawings of k15.

imo the Shourya is the just the name of land based variant (lacks the gas generator) and otherwise K15 == Shourya?

btw why does shourya need a nosecone with puff thrusters like a angry bull? is is to swiftly turn the nose into a angled climb rather than depend on tailfin control(more drag) for that?

By all accounts, Shourya is a maneuverable missile. The puff thrusters must be needed to impart this characteristic.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 29 Feb 2012 14:29

Singha wrote:I did a google search and could not locate a single pic of the K15 missile just drawings. defexpo pics of exposed shourya with pointy nose match drawings of k15.

I found this site with medium sized pic of K15.