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.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby koti » 28 May 2012 13:00

Two more Akash Missiles test fired.
Link

That is 4 consecutive missile tests this week.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby koti » 28 May 2012 15:17

^More info on above news item.
Now pull your hair
Two Akash missiles test-fired in Odisha, one successful

For the third time in five days, India today test-fired two surface-to-air anti-aircraft 'Akash' missiles from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur near here, achieving success in one while the data of the second trial was being analysed.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 28 May 2012 19:49

link from Hindu,

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3464773.ece

there is a mention of pitch up maneuver, does this point to a nuke warhead? anything else wouldn't need such a high altitude explosion for safety reasons

are the new tests about adapting to intercept sub or ship launched CMs?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 28 May 2012 20:30

the pitch up maybe in case of a miss in the tail chase engagement of an inbound else it could crash right into the protected target

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 28 May 2012 21:13

4 tests (2 IA and 2 IAF): 2 successes and 2 failures. IIRC, the production agency of Akash for the IA was BDL and for the IAF, it was BEL. It will be interesting to see if the problems are QC related or something else

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gaur » 28 May 2012 22:22

^^
No, only one confirmed failure. The result of the other test is still awaited.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 28 May 2012 22:56

vasu raya wrote:the pitch up maybe in case of a miss in the tail chase engagement of an inbound else it could crash right into the protected target


correct. without bottom or top attack, there is a large chance of hitting the preceding craft. reuse strategy.

dunno, by what distance the following target is separated? and how long can it be stretched so that a test to hit straight from behind is also critical to testing. may be, they have done it trailing another missile prelaunched, and akash tracking and firing it from behind.

I am sure an head on collision is mandatory testing.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52440
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 28 May 2012 23:03

Any ideas on the 60kg warhead of the Akash. It could make a potent ground attack PGM if packaged properly.

Is it same as SA-6 or something new from DRDO?

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 713
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 29 May 2012 04:46

^^^^
If I were to guess....

I would guess that the warhead itself would have conical characteristics, to produce a cone of heavy metal objects (probably tungsten) upon detonation; with the whole warhead assembly being gimbal-mounted and servo-controlled, to aim the direction of the tungsten blast cone in the direction of the target.

IMO, this would be the ideal type of AA warhead for the Akash.

As for what this would do on a ground target? :?: I really couldn't say, except that I would hope India would have something better in her arsenal for such a purpose. Also, it would pose a severe battlefield hazard for "friendlies", if an Akash warhead made it to the ground un-exploded, which is why I am pretty sure it is fused so that this could (hopefully) never happen.

Consider: The Akash warhead is intended to defeat aircraft, with light or no armour; whereas ground targets are typically heavier and harder; requiring something with more penetrative power.

JMT

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srai » 29 May 2012 05:06

ramana wrote:Any ideas on the 60kg warhead of the Akash. It could make a potent ground attack PGM if packaged properly.

Is it same as SA-6 or something new from DRDO?


Technology Focus Vol.7 No.5 October 1999
Warheads

ImageImageImage

Different types of warheads have been developed for the missiles under Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. In order to defeat diversified ground targets ranging from soft targets like personnel in open to hard targets like, runway, industrial complexes and built up areas, four different types of warheads have been designed and developed for Prithvi missile. The pre-fragmented warhead is designed to neutralise soft targets. The submunition warhead incorporating Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Bomblet is effective against AFVs in the top attack mode besides being effective against personnel up to a distance of about 10 m around the point of burst of each bomblet while the submunition incendiary warhead is effective against inflammable targets. The Runway Denial Penetrating Submunition warhead is designed and developed to neutralise hard targets like runways, administration and industrial complexes and marshalling yards. Prithvi missile, both Army and Air Force versions have been introduced into the Services. The design of the warheads involved development of new technologies and sophisticated mathematical models (software developed based on extensive basic research carried out to design and predict the performance of warheads under various combat conditions).

Application of in-house developed software and sophisticated CAD tools have led to optimal design of various subsystems of the warheads. The DPIC bomblet, viz., antitank-cum-anti- personnel bomblet developed for Prithvi missile, has been made universal in design and is being used for the cargo shells, bombs and rocket systems. The warhead systems designed for Trishul and Akash missiles, are of pre-fragmented type and are meant to defeat aerial targets. Tandem warhead for Nag based on shaped charge technology for use against ERA equipped modern MBT has been developed.

The warhead systems designed and developed will enable the Armed Forces to have totally indigenous strategic weapon systems.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 29 May 2012 05:34

what if the directional warhead (if is available on 'ground-attack' Akash) is made to explode right before the outlet of a hardened aircraft pen, don't need to drill through with bunker busting bombs

Image
Last edited by vasu raya on 29 May 2012 07:39, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66517
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 May 2012 06:36

what is the black slot up the side of warheads for? does it have a recessed lever which can be slid into various positions to set some fuse option?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9912
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sum » 29 May 2012 09:39

From tarmak:
Bangalore: Missile minds in India are an excited lot after monitoring the developments of Russia's 'secret' test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on May 23. While information on the test and its results are in short supply, sources with India's Missile Complex in Hyderabad seems to have made merry of what ever tit-bit features that have trickled in from Russia's Plesetsk range. Topping the eye-catching item numbers are: the missile's lesser radar cross section (RCS) features, multiple warhead capabilities and the use of a new fuel, that possibly makes the propulsion phase faster. The excitement of Indian scientists can be justified from the fact that many of the new features tested on the Russian missile are the the ones being planned for future versions of Agni series.
Russian news agencies have reported over the week that the testing of the yet-to-be-named weapon is Russia's answer to NATO's missile defence shield (European).

The timing of the test with many first-time-embedded features came only days after NATO declared that their missile defence shield attained operational status. “We too have a very active Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme running, including a counter measure for BMD. It is one of our key activities and we are seeing reports from Russia with interest,” Avinash Chander, Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems), Defence Reserach and Development Organisation (DRDO), told Express.


He said some of the features that is reported to have tested are areas DRDO have already set its sight on. “The idea is to reduce the time during the cruise phase. How to reduce RCS and IR (infrared) signatures? What are the active counter measures in terms of the capabilities to mauouvere? These are all common interest areas for missile scientists world over,” Avinash said. To a specific question on the new features of Agni-V future versions, he said: “We are now preparing the canister-launch-system for Agni-V.”

The Russian missile hit the designated target after cruising 6,000 km, carrying dummy warheads. On the new fuel the missile reportedly used, sources in the Missile Complex said: “This could provide higher acceleration and enable high thrust-weight ratio. In Agni-V, we used a solid booster with HTPB (Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene) propellant during the rocket's active stage of trajectory.”

On the Russian missile's capability to launch separate warheads with independent flightpath – thereby ducking incoming threats, sources said that India too would have similar features in days ahead. “Agni-VI is a definite possibility, though we haven't designed the vehicle yet. With many developed nations moving towards mastering new maneuvering skills for their missiles, we are confident of meeting our targets too. The idea of multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV) and manoeuvring re-entry vehicles (MaRV) are on our active radar,” sources said.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66517
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 May 2012 10:37

well a all-composite 1st stage would naturally impart higher acceleration, higher top speed and reduce the vulnerable boost phase time even with the exact same propellant. this might actually help to make the A5 smaller or mashallah permit a long burn third stage that reduces the unpowered 'coast' stage to a bare minimum and also a depressed zing zag trajectory.

lots of good stuff a light superfast 1st stage can act as a enabler for.

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20296 » 29 May 2012 11:53

For Higher speeds in Boost Phase we can develop a Electromagnatic Firing Mechanism, It takes away lot of weight of Boost Stage and also reduces dimensions of a missile as well as provides unmatched boost speed later a SCRAM Jet can kick in to ensure a punishment within 20 min all across the globe. Best thing is we have all necessary component to achieve such a missile :mrgreen:
Hope some one in DRDO is taking notes.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 29 May 2012 12:34

Austin wrote:Hardly any reason to worry there , every SAM has a certain pk value for certain class of targets and even in those certain missile will fail for any number of reasons , wonder when did a sam failure during trials or even combat ever made news


During GFI US claimed super success of the Patriot SAM. Then the real news started. Conclusion. Did patriot shot down even one Scud ? I do not think so. If we are scared of a failure we can do nothing.

My only fear is that the DDM should not start a anti-Akash campaign and then somebody says that there is a superlative Russian SAM SA xyz, "almost" ready and if India were to give just a few billion Rs/US$/Euros/zloty/drachma, the missile would be ready by 203X !!!

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 29 May 2012 16:27

ramana wrote:Any ideas on the 60kg warhead of the Akash. It could make a potent ground attack PGM if packaged properly.

Is it same as SA-6 or something new from DRDO?

It's range will be limited against ground targets (radar horizon) since its a command guided missile and require targeting from ground based radar. But SA-3/6 both had land attack capabilities and Shtil (which uses successor to SA-6 SA-11/17) can be used against ships. Akash should have something similar but why waste half million dollar missile hitting a target a dozen KMs away with just 60 kg payload.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3614
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Neela » 29 May 2012 16:30

Singha wrote:what is the black slot up the side of warheads for? does it have a recessed lever which can be slid into various positions to set some fuse option?

Looks like a marker for alignment of the warhead with the missile casing.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2012 17:30

are there any ICBMs ignited from 50k ft above dropped from An or 747 platform? along with the triad option, this would add a force multiplier for NFU strategy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2012 19:04


member_20163
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20163 » 29 May 2012 19:35

Hi Saik, Do we have any such plane in our inventory to carry such airdrop of A4 (thats the only one i can think off) apart from C-17s. Is this feasible though.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2012 19:46

part of MTA program, I am thinking we can start working on a dedicated platform for this. jmt

well instead of drawing it out with a drag chute, and deploying from cradle, I am thinking more like giant pylons under the bay... just like any other air launched system... but the complexities, gyros etc, are very much important to this riskiest mission.. but pays well for the boost phase help.

after launch, there is a bit of manoevering too, just to be safe on the path. it is very tricky though. other thoughts are keep the chutes as drags after drop launch from pylons, and then give it a few seconds to detach the chutes, stablize for the vertical position and fire.

PS: chutes may not work from pylons. regular drop and manoevering would be an option to consider.
Last edited by SaiK on 29 May 2012 19:55, edited 3 times in total.

veerav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: us

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby veerav » 29 May 2012 19:52

are there any ICBMs ignited from 50k ft above dropped from An or 747 platform? along with the triad option, this would add a force multiplier for NFU strategy.




So, does it mean that it is feassible to launch a 'Ballistic Missle' from Air?

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby D Roy » 29 May 2012 21:16

Yep.
The Skybolt was designed specifically to be an ALBM.

The Amrikis also did the C-5B + LGM-30 (minuteman) air mobile feasibility demonstration.

Amrikhans considered it once again pretty recently.

The idea was to use C-17 + CICBM combo for PGS. That itself was considered after tests were done under the LRALT program wherein an ALBM target was dropped from the back of a C-17 for missile defense tests.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66517
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 May 2012 21:44

and I thought the Russians were the ones who were fond of batnuts concepts.

khan is competitive in the way out concept demos for sure.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby D Roy » 29 May 2012 21:55

and the amrikhans consider the LRALT to be a more realistic simulation. :D

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52440
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 29 May 2012 22:32

Air borne launch platforms are considered unsafe and very risky. Think of the nightmare if one of them crashes for any reason.

Singha look up ideas of nuclear powered rockets very prevalent in the gungho 60s!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 30 May 2012 00:04

so, if we can launch from hill and mountains, we could gain that much altitude to work against. wonder what would be the calculations in terms of range, say if we launched it from 10K or 15K ft level. [himalayan]

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 30 May 2012 05:11

ramana wrote:Air borne launch platforms are considered unsafe and very risky. Think of the nightmare if one of them crashes for any reason.



The US was working on two competing designs of a nuclear powered bomber aircraft that could stay airborne for weeks. The problems were never ironed out and by that time some clever clog conceived of the nuclear sub and that caused the bottom to drop out of the nuclear powered aircraft plan.

This is an example of how technology can guide military choices and how the deterrent power moved from USAF to US Navy.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52440
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 May 2012 05:22

srai, Thanks for the detailed description. The Akash warhead is pre-fragmented and not a unitary one. So cant use it for ground attack. But the DPICP looks interesting.

Was thinking of a desi 'predator' role.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66517
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 May 2012 11:14

I believe the US never actually flew a nuclear powered a/c - how would they convert the heat -> turning the props or turbofans?
but they put a nuclear reactor inside a B-36 bomber and flew it around for a while.

those were the good old days when SAC used to keep squadrons of n-armed bombers on 24x7 in the air over alaska and canada to go bomb the soviets the moment POTUS made a call :rotfl:
now I dont think they even keep the n-armed version of the Boeing ALCM in the inventory. its just a bunch of legacy minuteman3 silos and 18 Ohio submarines.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby svinayak » 30 May 2012 13:24

The Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) was a Soviet ICBM program in the 1960s that after launch would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. It had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. This would allow a path to North America over the South Pole, hitting targets from the south, which is the opposite direction from which NORAD early warning systems are oriented.
The Outer Space Treaty banned nuclear weapons in Earth orbit. However, it did not ban systems that were capable of placing weapons in orbit, and the Soviet Union avoided violating the treaty by conducting tests of its FOBS system without live warheads.
The Soviets developed three missiles to employ FOBS, with only one entering service:
The orbital missile 8K69 (also known as R-36orb) was initially deployed in 1968, with the first regiment put on alert in 1969.
The Global Rocket 1, or GR-1, was cancelled due to engine problems.
The R-46 was not developed, and eventually scrapped.
The U.S. Defense Support Program early warning satellites, first launched in 1970, enabled the US to detect a FOBS launch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional ... ent_System

R-36-O / SL-X-? FOBS
In the early 1960s, the Soviets needed a way to overcome the forward base advantage held by the west. The west had forward bases in Turkey, Europe, and Asia from which shorter range missiles and bombers could attack the USSR. Following the failure of placing missiles to Cuba, the Soviets turned to technology to overcome the lack of forward positioning. The Vostok launches had previously demonstrated that the Soviets possessed the technology necessary to orbit a space vehicle and then land it in a specific target. In this, there was an implicit assumption that nuclear weapons could be placed in orbit and returned to Earth at any time and place. Khrushchev made this suggestion in 1961, but in March 1962, as part of the rhetoric preceding the Cuban crisis, he made yet another, more ominous suggestion.

"We can launch missiles not only over the North Pole, but in the opposite direction, too. Global rockets can fly from the oceans or other directions where warning facilities cannot be installed. Given global missiles, the warning system in general has lost its importance. Global missiles cannot be spotted in time to prepare any measures against them."

This statement was the first hint of a new concept called the fractional orbit bombardment system (FOBS) that had been under development since 1961.

The orbital missile 8K69 was initially deployed on 19 November 1968, and the first regiment with the R-36 orbital missiles was put on alert on 25 August 1969. The missile was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with the SALT-2 treaty, which prohibited the deployment of FOBS systems.

The R-36O SS-9 variant 3 SCARP with a modified upper stage was equipped with an orbital nose cone, which contained an instrumentation section, a single-chambered liquid propellant retrorocket motor and a nuclear warhead. Western estimates were that the orbital missile carried a one- to three-megaton warhead. Once placed into low-Earth orbit, the ICBM possessed unlimited range and the ability to approach the US from any direction, avoiding US northern-looking detection radars. This type of approach would give little or no warning that a warhead was inbound. The reentry vehicle came down in less than one revolution, hence the "fractional" orbit.

Following the failure of their first two tests in 1966, the Soviets conducted nine launches between 25 January and 28 October 1967 following the same distinct flight profile. The missiles would be launched in the late afternoon into an elliptical, near-polar low-Earth orbit and de-orbiting over the Soviet landmass before one complete orbit. This profile allowed the Soviets to monitor the deorbit, reentry, and impact. US planners viewed FOBS as a pathfinder system intended to precede a conventional ICBM attack and take out key retaliatory forces. The FOBS would circumvent the existing US ballistic missile early warning radars and hit SAC airfields and missile silos before the bombers could take off or missiles launched. FOBS could have also conceivably destroyed ABM radars, disrupt US retaliatory capability, destroy command posts, the White House, and the command and control network. But, due to its limited accuracy and payload, FOBS was deemed ineffective against hardened targets.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty basically allowed the Soviets to orbit everything but a nuclear warhead. The FOBS system allowed them the ability to deploy the weapons system minus the warheads without violating the treaty.

By 1968 the Soviets' FOBS program conducted two flights per year to indicate operational status. Although the Soviets deployed FOBS in 18 silos, political events in the U.S. prevented any serious examination of the system. At that time it was unclear to US intelligence whether the Soviets were developing FOBS, or ballistic missiles with depressed trajectories and deboost capabilities.


neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 811
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby neerajb » 30 May 2012 16:00

Singha wrote:I believe the US never actually flew a nuclear powered a/c - how would they convert the heat -> turning the props or turbofans? but they put a nuclear reactor inside a B-36 bomber and flew it around for a while.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_N ... Propulsion

Cheers....

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 713
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 30 May 2012 16:03

^^^^ This brings to mind an idea I've always had.....

At the start of the 'space age', there was the pressing imperative of the cold war.
This pretty quickly settled on the idea of putting nuclear weapons on missiles and lobbing them at the enemy.

Therefore, the technological development was focussed on missiles and their analogues, rockets.
This was effectively a 'duel-use' technology development program, attempting to 'kill two birds with one stone'.

However, purely as a matter of putting a delicate satellite in orbit, ground-launched rockets for orbiting satellites always seemed like a dumb approach, IMHO (as a complete amature in space systems). While I can see the appropriateness of such a system for weapons delivery, it never made sense to me as a means of putting satellites into orbit.

For starters, the ground-based rocket must punch-through the densest part of the atmosphere; requiring a lot of fuel and generating tremendous physical stresses on the satellite systems upon launch. I would argue, it makes much more sense to 'use' the atmosphere as much as possible....

This idea always conjured in my mind, images of large, jet-powered aircraft that would rise to the very height of their service ceiling, using aerodynamic lift to gain altitude, rather than trying to punch through the air with brute force and no aerodynamic lift, the way rockets do. Such an aircraft would thereby rise above the thickest part of the atmosphere, perhaps even fire a couple of underwing rocket motors to gain a bit more altitude; then pitch into a steep nosedive and miraculously expell an upward-pointing rocket out the back of the main body of the aircraft, with engines ignited a moment later.................!

Now it seems, the new generation of private space exploration companies have taken up a variation of this same idea, with some launching orbital vehicles that were first brought to high altitude by jet powered aircraft.

The idea suggested earlier in this thread, is simply the inverse of this one....

The cold war has lead us to use weapons-appropriate technologies for non-military purposes.
Will the smarter way forward lead us to use civilian-appropriate technologies for military purposes?
If it did, would this indeed amount to progress? (I would suggest, no.)

Should air-launched rockets be pursued? ABSOLUTELY YES, because the energy economics and technological advantages speak for themselves to anyone prepared to listen open-mindedly. IN FACT, IMHO, large-scale, air-launched rocket systems used to place PV satellites into geo-synchronous orbits so they can beam microwave-band energy back to earth, thereby providing clean, green, baseload electric power, 24x7... this is the best hope for humanity, if our continued existence on this planet is not to lead to its death.

For more information visit http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/

To those who do, and who want to discount the idea as being too expensive; consider that the idea of using air-launched rockets to orbit these satellites has not been factored-in, and should be; because this is very obviously the best way to drive-down satellite launch costs, IMHO (as an amature aerospace engineer with extensive experience using LEGO).

JMT.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 30 May 2012 19:44

I see a viable option with the non-riskier air launched anti-sat weapon systems, as there is no nuke involved there. By doing the air launched anti-sats, we would establish a base line technology and critical data for taking a decision for the riskier venture.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby svinayak » 31 May 2012 12:02

Anybdy knows this company
http://www.microsemi.com/

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sanku » 31 May 2012 12:07

Acharya wrote:Anybdy knows this company
http://www.microsemi.com/


In what sense? They are a publicly listed fairly big Semi company, so yes, people know about them.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 380
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nikhil_p » 31 May 2012 14:51

Chaiwallah to Paanwallah Alert

My chaiwallah informed me that the paanwallah who supplies paan to the engg working on a project informs that...

We can expect a couple more raakit loonches in near future including one nos cruze mijjile, development test of mbrl (dont know what further development on an accepted system!) and test of one nos of short sam.

As of now no further updates from him...but will ask him to put more ginger in tea to get better news.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 31 May 2012 19:28

it is time to engage kaamwali bais to get more information.

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby adityadange » 31 May 2012 19:38

development test of mbrl (dont know what further development on an accepted system!)

maybe Pinaka Wiki?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest