Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2012 22:15

I can understand the restriction of range when missiles are launched on fire and forget more from tanks. But, for helina, we should look at greater than 25mile range with a boosted range since helo can definitely support by raising itself up, lock the target, fire, and lower down.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jul 2012 23:57

Katare wrote:Rohit,

It seems tanks (both T90s and Arjun) can fire missiles up to 5-6KM range with rather large warheads and almost assured destruction of target. How does these missiles differ from Nag type dedicated carriers in destruction capabilities? What additional advantage a Nag type missile brings that justifies a whole new logistics chain integrated to armor thrusts/defenses?

...

NAMICA w/ Nag missiles are to equip Reconnaissance and Support Battalions.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2012 04:30

Katare wrote:Rohit,

It seems tanks (both T90s and Arjun) can fire missiles up to 5-6KM range with rather large warheads and almost assured destruction of target. How does these missiles differ from Nag type dedicated carriers in destruction capabilities? What additional advantage a Nag type missile brings that justifies a whole new logistics chain integrated to armor thrusts/defenses?

The NAMICA can fire a barrage of missiles, while a tank can employ only one missile at a time. Assuming the reconnaissance assets (UAVs, helicopters and/or Ghatak/SF teams) are tracking a troop/squadron of enemy tanks, when fired upon by a single tank, the unit will immediate deploy smoke and start evasive maneuvers before the tank gets a second shot off. A salvo of eight missiles on the other hand can impact near simultaneously, devastating the enemy formation. The only limitation here is the number of targets that can be tracked at a time. One hopes the software and hardware is up to it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2012 14:22

India’s Military Comes of Age: The BrahMos Missile

Jointly developed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia’s Mashinostroyeniye Company, the BrahMos is a stealthy, supersonic missile designed to elude shipboard defenses like the Aegis combat system, a combined radar and fire-control system found on board American, Japanese, and South Korean destroyers and cruisers. (Spain and Norway operate the system as well, while the Royal Australian Navy is outfitting its next-generation warships with it.) Aegis has stood at the vanguard of fleet air defense since the early 1980s, when USS Ticonderoga, the U.S. Navy’s first Aegis cruiser, stood out to sea. Getting past Aegis is an achievement.

Judging from the technical parameters, the Indian Navy has one-upped the U.S. Navy in this niche technology. On paper, the Indian ASCM appears superior to the AGM-84 Harpoon, long the U.S. Navy’s workhorse anti-ship missile. It certainly outranges the Harpoon. The BrahMos can strike at targets 290 kilometers distant, more than double the advertised range“in excess of” 67 nautical miles (77 statute miles, or124 kilometers)for the Harpoon. And with a top speed approaching Mach 3.0, the supersonic BrahMos far outstrips the subsonic Harpoon.

Speed kills. Helter-skelter speed compresses the time air defenders have to respond—and time is the critical determinant in the “detect-to-engage” sequence. It allows crews to attempt electronic countermeasures, loft surface-to-air missiles, launch decoys, or—as a last-gasp effort—engage an incoming missile with short-range guns. Shorter detect-to-engage time, then, means fewer rounds or countermeasures in the air to stop or deflect a hostile bird.But there’s another, less obvious advantage to high speed. Velocity imparts kinetic energy to any moving body.Accordingly, one body inflicts more damage when it slams into another at higher speed. Breakneck velocity magnifies a missile’s hitting powerbeyond the explosive power designed into its payload.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Jul 2012 21:25

If I can read Katare's post correctly, his questionnaire is not about NAMICA but NAG.

If I reword his question, if Invar like ATGM is so effective Tank killer and do have range as that of NAG, why is it that we could not utilize Invar for NAMICA and why we need a separate missile like NAG for the role.

In other words, he is questioning why NAG should enjoy such niche role and why not Invar/LAHAT like ATGM.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2012 21:41

Last I heard due to spread of laser, Invar could not reliably hit targets at 5km

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 Jul 2012 21:41

Is there any news on when the Kamorta will Join IN? I am not sure the pic showed it ready to Join in August.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2012 23:42

For a simple one line answer:-

Nag will hit the tank at 4 km while Invar may miss.

Ok, I will start from a different angle. Beam riding missiles have poor accuracy at long ranges. Laser homing missiles have better accuracy but even Hellfire has a accuracy of around 5 to 10m at range of 5-8 km. My “guess” is that Invar has worse accuracy. On the other hand Nag will get a better picture as it homes in, so its accuracy will improve, as it gets closer to target.

Secondly Nag is fire and forget. Invar kill my @ss for next 20 seconds after firing the missile when laser detectors are looking at you directly. Sooner you detect the launch, more quickly you can kill the launcher, read Invar launcher is easier to kill.

Any obstruction in the laser path like smoke, fog, dust etc will make the Invar missile useless. Further the launcher sight have to lock on accurately till 5km at whatever micro atmospheric conditions and distortions. Laser beam has to travel 5km and lock/guide accurately.

Invar will hit the target normally at its strongest armour face. So assuming 50% change of hitting, 50% chance of explosive beam forming properly in precursor charge, another 50% possibility of second explosive beam hitting the same spot, 50% chance of second explosive beam forming, 50% change of missile being at correct incidence, would mean that 30 to 50 Invar missiles will be required to kill one Paki tank at 5km. Nag will hit the enemy tank from the top, its weakest place.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jul 2012 00:41

I think there are enough reasons to not put all our eggs into the Invar/Lahat basket:

a) Nag has a larger warhead & is a top attack missile. I am willing to bet it has a much higher probability of killing an MBT than either Invar or Lahat

b) It has a better seeker (IIR with a CCD camera) that'd be less prone to countermeasures. With Invar/Lahat, you are dependent on only laser guided missiles. There is a reason why laser countermeasures (smoke grenades) are specified by the army as a must-have in Arjun-Mk2

c) Allows for shoot and scoot due to LOAL + the propellant is designed so that Nag launch detection is difficult. The shooter is exposed to risk in the case of laser guided missiles (assuming illumination by the launch platform)

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Jul 2012 05:44

Interesting thoughts gents, shows how multifaceted these things are once you include war fighting with hardware.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 28 Jul 2012 06:07

Prem Kumar wrote: c) Allows for shoot and scoot due to LOAL + the propellant is designed so that Nag launch detection is difficult. The shooter is exposed to risk in the case of laser guided missiles (assuming illumination by the launch platform)

A slight correction, Nag is not LOAL but LOBL. It offers shoot and scoot opportunity due to it's fire and forget feature.

Helina will have LOAL capability, wherein missile is launched in a general enemy direction and after the target comes within the IIR seeker range, the WSO designates a target using the video feed given by the missile itself. After this the missile becomes fire and forget. This is how they plan to double Nag's range.

@ Vic: Nice explanation.

Regarding your last point of Invar hitting the strongest point, IIRC in a recent article about Arjun Mk2 there was a mention of the laser warning system automatically rotating the turret to present it's strongest face to the incoming missile. Dunno if this tech exists with pakis or chinese though...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jul 2012 07:19

No expert, but, Lahat does have some nice features IIRC. 8 KM range (more from a helo), top strike, etc.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Jul 2012 09:16

Yes but Lahat requires laser beam from target acquisition to launch to hitting target, Nag top attack profile and fire forget means this is not required, once target acquired Namica can hide and target if it hides behinds dunes and features will still be targeted by IIR.

4KM -8KM makes difference from Heli launched missile but hardly matters for a ground launched missile as practically you are never going to see 8 KM unless in the mountains, Even for Helicopters to see 8KM you need to be at a significant height with your laser pointed at the target, a good target for SAM's, at least 8KM puts you out of range of most MANPADS.

Kritavarman · Post by **Kritavarman** » 29 Jul 2012 11:23

@ANI_news BrahMos missile test fired

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 29 Jul 2012 13:29

Today's launch.

Courtesy- Shiv

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2012 14:13

Yes but Lahat requires laser beam from target acquisition to launch to hitting target, Nag top attack profile and fire forget means this is not required, once target acquired Namica can hide and target if it hides behinds dunes and features will still be targeted by IIR.

4KM -8KM makes difference from Heli launched missile but hardly matters for a ground launched missile as practically you are never going to see 8 KM unless in the mountains, Even for Helicopters to see 8KM you need to be at a significant height with your laser pointed at the target, a good target for SAM's, at least 8KM puts you out of range of most MANPADS.

Hmmm.......

Not to drag this one further, however, Lahat does not need host to designate target. Someone else - much, much closer - can perform that function.

The range is of the missile - land (8) or air (13) - NOT of the designator The designator can be anywhere!!! As long as the designator and host can communicate all is well. I would think that is true of any laser riding weapon.

Lahat launcher can hide too, designator will be exposed for 30-40 seconds. Long time true.

On a different note, do we really need to compare the two? Each seems - to me (a non expert) - to have their own advantages.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 29 Jul 2012 19:37

On flat terrain the 8 km horizon is ~ 5.5 m AGL.

MANPADS have a range of 4-6 km

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2012 20:04

I have always been very doubtful of this 3rd party designation thing...starting with the copperhead missile I read about as a school kid in 1980s.
too much communication and co-ordination needed to do this in parallel against a strong attack. may work on isolated targets but hardly against a regiment sized tank attack , with supporting artillery blasting the infantry bunkers and trenches to keep them quiet. UAVs trying to do it can only lase one target at a time, and can easily be targeted by mobile battlefield SAMs and AAA.

in short the launch platform has to mostly do it, or leave it to upto a F&F missile which might permit better ripple fire against multiple targets in short order....or direct fire mobile weapons like own MBTs that can engage separate targets with seconds of gap and shells are F&F for sure.

force needs to be replied not with serial sniping but salvo attacks.......ATGMs going VL in a Tor style housing, with top attack and initial waypoint input from shooting vehicle, with IIR and MMW sensors is the way fwd. a small unit of 4 launchers with 8 ATGMs each could unleash 20-30 ATGMs within a minute on a set of moving targets (in a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of missiles:targets) and withdraw safely.....PK will be very high in such scenarios...

people have been misled by predator videos taking out a taliban pickup or band of talibs in some forest. these predators will not work against a armour attack with supporting Buk or Tor style SAMs that will neatly shred the reaper within a min of being picked up.

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 29 Jul 2012 20:25

[quote="Roperia"]

^^^
has anybody noticed, solid stage falling off in this video??
i know this missile has two stages, solid and ramjet. but I have never seen solid stage falling off so early in any of the previous launches.
Have they modified something???

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jul 2012 21:24

may be it is the IAF version but launched from ground.. so early release measures near correct flight parameters, except the launch sequence.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 29 Jul 2012 23:02

The booster is used to reach ramjet operational velocity. So the booster will be jettisioned only after this is achieved. It makes no difference whether its IAF or IA version. The air launched version may have a lower weight due to a smaller booster, but it also has the velocity of the launching aircraft added on, hence needing a smaller booster. The same version launched from the ground will need the ground booster as it starts at zero velocity.

If we are to read anything into this quick jettison of the booster

- it may be because of a more efficient booster which achieves Ramjet velocity more quickly

Or

- they may be testing a ramjet engine which needs a lower velocity to kick in

Or

- a combination of both

Or

- they may have been testing with larger safety margins previously, and this test is with a fully operational missile.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 30 Jul 2012 01:37

the booster shoots up after separation, so shall we conclude that they attempted early separation to study the performance, the 2nd stage burning is smokeless but looks like hasn't hit the Mach barrier yet

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jul 2012 01:56

may be it reached near mach 1 at the most.. I was only thinking about early release, and nothing else.. so best fit would be a release at height at subsonic speed, as if it launched from an a/c.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jul 2012 23:51

^^^ The test was not a success.

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/49598/I ... 2#page/4/2

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 31 Jul 2012 08:12

Link quote's ITR director saying it was successful and met all parameters.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 31 Jul 2012 08:21

DRDO to increase missiles’ range

HYDERABAD: India's missile power will be enhanced with defence scientists now working towards increasing the range of various missiles. The range of surface-to-air missiles, which is presently 50 km will be increased to 300 km.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is also aiming to increase the range of air-to-surface missiles up to 400 km and air-to-air missiles up to 300 km, according to Avinash Chander, DRDO chief controller R&D (missiles and strategic systems) and director Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL).

Avinash Chander who spoke at the silver jubilee celebrations of Hardware-in-loop Simulation (HILS) at the Research Centre Imarat (RCI) here also explained the big plans of DRDO for the future including on the tactical missiles front. He said work was on the 'seek and destroy' class of missiles, smart bombs, underwater cruise missiles. "We are confident that we can make our weaponry capabilities better than world class," he said.
:
:
:

nash · Post by **nash** » 31 Jul 2012 08:47

SAM: 50km to 300 Km will be from Akash to AAD/PAD

A2A:300Km will be K-100

A2S:400Km will be Brahmos-1,2 or DRDO LR supersonic crusie missile.

all these will be in coming decade..hope for best..

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Jul 2012 09:46

India quietly gate crashes into submarine-launched ballistic missiles club?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 31 Jul 2012 12:11

Nash, that TOI-let news report was the least informative piece of reporting that was DDM at its worst. Akin to horoscope reporting-- each reader at home can read into it what he wants. I came away thinking WTF? First Akash barely has a range of 30 (28) km. The Novator K-100 is vapor ware. 400 km for a long range cruise missile aint long range for a cruise missile. And my favorite, the underwater cruise missile. While DRDO has undoubtedly come a long way on the missile front, I came away from that farticle wanting 30 seconds of my life back! Maybe the Chindu can re-write it and make sense of that gibberish.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2012 21:29

kanson, Recall the video of the A-I terminal phase? Can you estimate the height of burst from the approximate RV speed and the time of splashdown?

Thanks, raman

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jul 2012 21:34

^ToIlet headlines is incorrect. We are not "gate-crashing" into the club.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Aug 2012 03:39

AAD and PAD both are SAM to begin with, although it seems for anti aircraft role they will need to be modified...

What needs to be changed? They both have seeker, guidance, radar integration and datalink(?) so what is missing?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 01 Aug 2012 03:56

Katare: there are commonalities like the ones you mentioned - seekers etc. But there are significant differences too based on the deployment scenario, which will pose engineering challenges:

a) Propellant: PAD (liquid fueled 2nd stage) might not be ideal for air defence. SAMs are likely to be solid fueled
b) Size & Mobility: ABM interceptors can be huge and positioned in well sited areas. You need SAMs mobile and deployed in numbers
c) Guidance: Akash will likely be our last command guided SAM. Very long range SAMs will need some sort of command guidance initially but would need to terminally engage independently. I believe PAD/AAD has terminal guidance - so there might be some commonality there, but the seeker capability is key. For SAM guidance, you have to worry about SEAD efforts of attacking aircraft (something you dont have to worry about as much when you are tracking/intercepting BMs)

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2012 05:43

AAD uses active seeker command guidance is impractical at range beyond 50 KM or against fast moving targets.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2012 06:27

John wrote:AAD uses active seeker command guidance is impractical at range beyond 50 KM or against fast moving targets.

Do you mean maneuverable targets? If it is ineffective against fast moving targets, it wouldn't be much of a BMD system would it?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 01 Aug 2012 12:44

A2A:300Km will be~~K-100~~ KS-172 derivative. During MAKS 2009 the Russians unveiled the mockup of a derivative of the KS-172 designated simply as LRAAM at the time.

A2S:400Km will most likely be an air launched version of the Prahaar.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Aug 2012 13:17

SAMs can be AAD, PAD, their successors or even booster added variant of LRSAM-MRSAM.

Air to Ground can be Brahmos, Nirbhay, Sudershan, ARMs, Ramjet LRCM

Air to Air can be Novator, Ram jet Astra or even Astra with a booster

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 01 Aug 2012 13:18

What would it take to convert the Shaurya to convert into a Ultra long range SAM? Tis ambitious but can be done, the thing already has a range of 750 km+ can cruise at 40 to 50 km altitude has a top notch speed of mach 7+, both it's stages use solid propellants, all we need an on board active radar seeker, strengthen the missile to be able to withstand manuever G loads of around 40 to 60 G and offcourse with a much smaller warhead of around 100 kg, the missile becomes lighter by over around 1 ton and we would essentially have possibly the deadliest SAM ever made. Offcourse the SAM version will be smaller but it can share the same hybrid engine.

Actually since the Shuarya can already manuever towards it's target and is capable of certain terminal manuevers, the essential hit to kill manuevering in the SAM version will occur only in the last 30 to 40 seconds since nothing can out manuever it. It's sheer speed and long range will not allow even the most maneuvrable of fighters to get away.

I think we would save a lot of time by just working on something that already has so much potential.

Prahaar air launched version could be the ideal long range Anti radition missile with a range of 150 to 180 km, the thing only weighs 1.3 tons with a length of 7.3 m.

The secretive Long range cruise missile should have a range of around 600 km with a top speed of mach 3.2+

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2012 13:22

>> strengthen the missile to be able to withstand manuever G loads of around 40 to 60 G

I think the idea is great, but has a 40G (AAM type) loads on a large missile like Shurya been proven by anyone yet?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 01 Aug 2012 13:57

Sprint missile, g forces = 100 g