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.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 11 Aug 2012 00:25

ramana wrote:So at that height it can take out buried structures too. I was thinking of RATs (Rogue Army of Terrorists) hiding in ratholes (ala Saddam Hussein) thinking they are command bunkers.

For 250 kt weapon, 100m burst qualify as Surface burst.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55024
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Aug 2012 00:45

Did you account for the CEP of the A series?

8)

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 11 Aug 2012 02:43

^^^^^ One critical consideration (I hope) is the fact that the closer to the ground the weapon detonates, the more fallout will result; so therefore the prevailing winds are a cause of concern.

This means that a ground burst in the TSP will likely rain a lot of fallout onto India -- not good.
I always took this to be part of the reason why the DRDO has such a hankering for low CEP capability (which makes it possible to use smaller weapons, because they are more accurate).

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4072
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Lilo » 12 Aug 2012 18:59

Mihir,

What about MIRVs , Decoys , non nuclear ballistic missiles ( ABM cannot determine whether a launched BM is nuclear tipped or not ) , non ballistic Reentry stages , etc.

Paki dont have most of them but they will be getting such technawledgies in the nick of time through Chinese or US.

In light of above , Indian ABM should at this stage be focussed on evolving further through research and development - while deploying in a mere skeletal structure . Its spread is currently not important .

Going for a fully stocked ABM against Pakis will only make sense after there is reasonable surity that Pak missile tech has reached a plateau.Let the red lines be clearly conveyed to the Chinese and Americans in this regard on consequences of further nuclear missile tech transfers to Pak (currently i dont think any such , has been conveyed to either of them).

In any case a fully stocked ABM is a prerequisite for the final indo-pak showdown , post which Pakistan is not expected to survive as a state and out of which India must emerge relatively unscathed and able to hold off a belligerent China and West.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16877
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Aug 2012 22:28

A week or so ago there was a news item that the missile team was thinking of a 300/400 Km SAM.

I think that is a crucial chessman in this game.

ABMs are good for Chicom. For TSP the best chessman would be one that would take out missiles in their very early phase: boost phase. And, it is actually one case where it seems doable. IF they can produce a SAM at that range, then I would think the chances are better with a captive target. Paki centric ABMs then would be a back-up system.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2007
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ldev » 13 Aug 2012 01:34

To achieve the 99% kill rate will require the launch of 3 interceptors per warhead. The US has the technical capability, limited only by START, to deploy 12 warheads per missile. I see no reason why China cannot achieve that if they want to in the future. The true economic cost will not be just C4, but 36 interceptors per 12 warhead MIRV missile. So for every such additional missile deployed India will have to deploy 36 interceptors.

Does this mean that the ABM shield is useless? Not at all. IMO it is useful for relatively small attacks from single warhead missiles. But it will not protect from a massive volley of MIRVed missiles.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16877
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2012 04:00

google wrote: missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent.


It is both AAD and PAD when launched to intercept an incoming missile the kill rate is around 99.8%.

IIRC 3 successful tests of a single missile makes it 99% certain that the missile will perform as advertized. (Ramana?)

OK, that said, MIRV also means more investments - 12 petals in one flower means that mcuh more cost - besides MIRVs do not coem cheap.

Also, how do we define "massive"? In the case of China will it leave China Nuke-nude?

Then IF China decides to invest in more flowers, will others accept the argument that these flowers are ONLY meant for India and keep chugging along without responding?

I feel the cost for China would be rather concerning. And, it would be even more so if India were able to tie the hands of Paki nukes.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Aug 2012 04:25

3. What if the Pakistanis build so many nukes that they are unable to secure them and they fall into the hands of "non-state actors"? /quote]

This is the really 'chankian' strategy for India. Right now, the pakis have convinced everyone (US/UK/Europe/China) that the 'deterrent' is India specific—making it India's problem. Now, if the nukes start to become 'mobile and dispersed' both as a result of Indian ABMs and the fear of a US takeout, it becomes everyone else's problem as well. Just the threat of them of falling into 'non-state actors' (paki euphemism for plausible deniablity), changes the game.

That means a whole lot of indifferent/supportive/realpolitik types see a threat to themselves. Then we are not alone.

Far different strategic picture. :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16877
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2012 04:32

I feel that India is sitting in a very good position. That despite what some kite-flying defense analysts think.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4208
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby kit » 13 Aug 2012 04:37

I think MIRV warheads seperate exoatmosphere , so if you can intercept the missile at the range before seperation occurs, you could theoretically provide a better ABM capability.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16877
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2012 04:41

kit wrote:I think MIRV warheads seperate exoatmosphere , so if you can intercept the missile at the range before seperation occurs, you could theoretically provide a better ABM capability.


Interesting that you mention that. I was looking for what altitude this separation occurs. I was also looking for any statement of the PAD's range will be extended.

Turns out the Indian radar has a range of 600 Kms. The PAD has a range of 80 Kms.

Having said all that, I found a ton of news items on India's effort to build an anti-sat capability. Such a capability should place it to intercept a MIRV - when it is still intact - I would think. Or even attack the sucker in post-boost phase. Paki's are within that range. Chini bhai? Dunno.

Does anyone recall how far into space did the A5 test take it?

added l8r:

A5 is designed for 500 Kms.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Mihir » 13 Aug 2012 04:50

Lilo, IDev, MIRVs can be dealt with when they make an appearance. Suffice it to say that MIRV is particularly vulnerable to a long-range interceptor that can take the MIRV bus out before it discharges its warheads. The Nike Zeus B demonstrated this capability decades back, as did Spartan.

As far as decoys go, there are schools of thought that decoys today pretty much don't work. They say that unless these decoys are exact copies of the warhead as far as flight characteristics, radar signature, thermal signature, etc., they can be detected and ignored by the C4I. This holds especially true when we talk about endo-atmospheric interceptors. Being lighter than the warheads themselves, the decoys will behave very differently as soon as they enter the atmosphere and can be filtered out. And as target discrimination technology keeps improving, this should become easier and easier to achieve. The other side counters saying that all this isn't as easy as it sounds and puts forth several good points to show that decoys can indeed be made to work. Unfortunately, amateurs like us have little idea as to what the truth really is.

Of course, all this becomes moot the moment you achieve the capability to kill the bus itself rather than individual warheads. From my reading of the situation, this is precisely where the BMD effort appears to be headed, with the design of long-range missiles, multiple kill vehicles, and what not being mentioned.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2007
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ldev » 13 Aug 2012 06:20

Also, how do we define "massive"? In the case of China will it leave China Nuke-nude?


NRao,

The reason the US gave up "Star Wars" was because of the sheer number of Soviet warheads, in the thousands that could be launched on the US with MIRVed missiles. Today's US ABM system is geared to guard against isolated missiles from "rogue states". In the Indian context, I would say that China is a rational actor who can be deterred...Pakistan is a non-rational actor only against India because of Partition and then Pakistan's second partition. If the objective of Indian ABM's is to defend against Pakistan, it is entirely feasible, because of the numbers involved and also because of geography wherein future long range Indian SAM's and AAM's could intercept in the boost phase.

Against China, and one should not look at today's China with its relatively limited 400-600 warhead count, but a China of the future which decides to expand its warhead count to a few thousand, the ABM system will never work. But then as I said, I believe China is and will continue to be a rational actor. The joker in the pack is proliferation from China to Pakistan, of MIRV technology, of N subs and SLBM's and any conceivable scenario in the future where Pakistan again gets "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.

But my point is that in an open ended escalation, the advantage of cost and strategy will lie with the attacker not with the ABM defence.

Added later: In the first Gulf War (1991), for every Scud fired by Iraq, the US responded with multiple Patriots i.e. often a battery of 4 missiles was fired to respond to a single Scud. Agreed that was the first generation Patriot not really optimized against missiles, but you get the point. The latest,PAC-3 is much better and if I remember somebody from DRDO (Chander, Saraswat), saying that PAD is similar to the Patriot....presumably he meant PAC-3.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pranav » 13 Aug 2012 09:55

vic wrote:
MN Kumar wrote:Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister of India, Dr. V.K. Saraswat checks out the Cannon Launched Guided Missile [Projectile] currently under development at the DRDO
Image deleted
Never heard about this...


It is version of LAHAT being developed by DRDO with Israel.


Is the Lahat / Cannon Launched Guided Missile explosively launched like an artillery shell? Can they withstand similar G's as an Excalibur round?

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Aug 2012 10:53

ldev wrote:The reason the US gave up "Star Wars" was because of the sheer number of Soviet warheads, in the thousands that could be launched on the US with MIRVed missiles.


Star Wars was just a fog created by Pentagon to let Soviet outspend its economy in reality nothing about SDI program was real but a well orchestrated media strategy to show it was real and working.

The Soviet found reality of Star Wars program and never built a equivalent program inspite of pressure to do so , the book "Dead Hand" deals in length on the challenges and dilemma faced by SU leadership during Regans star wars era.

The latest,PAC-3 is much better and if I remember somebody from DRDO (Chander, Saraswat), saying that PAD is similar to the Patriot....presumably he meant PAC-3.


Its AAD actually having twice the interception altitude of PAC-3

tushar_m

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 13 Aug 2012 11:30

agni 5 have to get mirv warhead say 3-5 warheads on single missile say we deploy minimum 15 such missile(which is bare least) + arihant will carry 4 slbms with mirv then ( 4*5=20 warheads) without mirv(4 warheads) with intention to deploy minimum 3 such subs =mirv(20*3=60) without mirv(4*3=12) considering sfc put equal number of nuclear warheads with all three branches then,

army(missile)=agni5(15*5=75)+other agni series (15+ minimum)=90 warheads
navy sub launched=k4(20*3)+follow on arihant subs or spare say 10+ warheads =70+ warheads
airforce= no idea abt delivery methods but taking mean of army & navy=(90+70)/2=80 warheads


total bare minimum nuclear warheads required =90+70+80=240 nuclear warheads

so my question is shouldn't we increase our warhead numbers considering atleast 240 are required for full scale war senario ???

any comments are welcome

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4208
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby kit » 13 Aug 2012 12:00

tushar_m wrote:agni 5 have to get mirv warhead say 3-5 warheads on single missile say we deploy minimum 15 such missile(which is bare least) + arihant will carry 4 slbms with mirv then ( 4*5=20 warheads) without mirv(4 warheads) with intention to deploy minimum 3 such subs =mirv(20*3=60) without mirv(4*3=12) considering sfc put equal number of nuclear warheads with all three branches then,

army(missile)=agni5(15*5=75)+other agni series (15+ minimum)=90 warheads
navy sub launched=k4(20*3)+follow on arihant subs or spare say 10+ warheads =70+ warheads
airforce= no idea abt delivery methods but taking mean of army & navy=(90+70)/2=80 warheads


total bare minimum nuclear warheads required =90+70+80=240 nuclear warheads

so my question is shouldn't we increase our warhead numbers considering atleast 240 are required for full scale war senario ???

any comments are welcome


Deterrence is all in the mind of the beholder ! Theoretically yes., but practically you could do with less

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12492
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Aug 2012 12:07

Also, if we are increaisng our Warheads, it is not in our Interest to make a song and dance about, bets it slips below the radar until we have required nos, I doubt even 240 is enough, we need enough to wipe 99% of TSP population + Chinese population and still have reserve 200 warheads, that would be crediable deterrent, looks like we need a 1000 warheads. Neither USA, Russia or CHina ever declare thier true warheads, US deliberately understates, we should do the same. It is better TSP gets all the publicity. I doubt even MMS and INC cotrie and the whole lot of GOI (Indian Armed forces, DAE, DRDO, MOD etc.) would like to keep to unilaterly cap our warheads. Everybody knows we need to increase our no. of deliverable warheads while slipping under the Media radar.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 13 Aug 2012 12:27

kit wrote:
tushar_m wrote:agni 5 have to get mirv warhead say 3-5 warheads on single missile say we deploy minimum 15 such missile(which is bare least) + arihant will carry 4 slbms with mirv then ( 4*5=20 warheads) without mirv(4 warheads) with intention to deploy minimum 3 such subs =mirv(20*3=60) without mirv(4*3=12) considering sfc put equal number of nuclear warheads with all three branches then,

army(missile)=agni5(15*5=75)+other agni series (15+ minimum)=90 warheads
navy sub launched=k4(20*3)+follow on arihant subs or spare say 10+ warheads =70+ warheads
airforce= no idea abt delivery methods but taking mean of army & navy=(90+70)/2=80 warheads


total bare minimum nuclear warheads required =90+70+80=240 nuclear warheads

so my question is shouldn't we increase our warhead numbers considering atleast 240 are required for full scale war senario ???

any comments are welcome


Deterrence is all in the mind of the beholder ! Theoretically yes., but practically you could do with less


agreed but if you have 4 tubes on arihant n cosider it SSBN on SSGN you have 2 put 4 missiles on it you cant built a sub with 4 tubes n put 2 missiles on it leaving other 2 empty also considering billion's spend on the technology for the sub

also u can't keep all the assets on same platform so different platform at different places all over india so that initial punch from opponents doesn't knock down your own launch platforms again will require more warheads

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 13 Aug 2012 20:53

ramana wrote:Did you account for the CEP of the A series?

8)

Sir, you know very well about accuracy of our Agni series. :wink:

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:^^^^^ One critical consideration (I hope) is the fact that the closer to the ground the weapon detonates, the more fallout will result; so therefore the prevailing winds are a cause of concern.

This means that a ground burst in the TSP will likely rain a lot of fallout onto India -- not good.
Being taken the stand of NFU, fallout from our weapon will be of secondary concern becoz when that happens we were already nuked in some form by our neighbour. I'm sure, those handling such task must have already went through all such nuisances.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:I always took this to be part of the reason why the DRDO has such a hankering for low CEP capability (which makes it possible to use smaller weapons, because they are more accurate).
Air burst too have fallout. A significant portion of casualties in Japan was due to fallout which is an air burst meant to cause larger destruction. For such burst meant to maximize destruction, single digit accuracy is not a must which DRDO demonstrated/claimed in several Agni/Prithvi tests. During Cold War, higher accuracy is expected for Counter Force targets. JMT.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55024
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Aug 2012 21:19

Kanson, Do a a cratering calc for typical yields for ground burst.

Thanks for getting it.

PS: I am not good at drawings but this is what I would like to see drawn:
- Drawing/picture with Pindi Hq with a tunnel/shaft
- next an overlay of A series CEP
- next a crater depth from a ground or surface burst
- show the tunnel/shaft cracked

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Avid » 13 Aug 2012 21:21

Amitabh wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Rebuttal to Manoj Joshi's hatchet job on BMD.

'The Indian missile shield: nothing to be baffled about'

by Mihir Shah

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... -shah.html

Good rebuttal, but not all the points are convincing:

(1) I understand the Game of Thrones analogy (which btw would be lost on someone who is not familiar with the book/show and should be simplified to illustrate the point IMO) on virtual attrition but you have to be damned sure that the marginal cost of building offensive capability exceeds the marginal cost of building defensive capability. Remember you are building defenses against Pakistan and China, and bankruptcy could beckon if this implicit cost assumption is proved wrong;

(2) An expansion in Pakistan strategic weapons is a given and may even be underway from various press reports (some of which suggest that Pak nukes exceed Indian nukes in number). While the rebuttal tries to convince this is a positive (given economic realities), it neglects the increased complexity and C2 risks that flow from higher numbers of Pak nukes and the increased risk of inadvertent use and/or theft by non-state actors. Given the current situation in Pakistan the latter is arguably as serious a danger as any and an Indian policymaker should weigh the risks of increased numbers of Pak weapons very seriously. Also should we look at the Pak economy in isolation? Will China not be tempted to buttress the Pak arsenal?

However one point that would strengthen one of Mihir Shah's points is that the US has an interest in inflating the China threat while underplaying Indian capabilities, so it can hardly be considered a neutral umpire as Manoj Joshi does.


One strategic aspect of BMD for India -- it is to enable India overcome the NFU restraints without a shadow of doubt. To overcome the BMD, TSP/China must launch more than one nuke missile. This cannot be attributed to "failure" of chain in command or "rogue" officer/general. So, despite increasing their arsenal; unless they are willing to use it all in one go -- the first shot takes restraints off India to launch a massive counter-strike with the justifiable goal of neutralizing the arsenal of an unstable and willing-to-use nuclear weapons state.

In any scenario of a nuclear war, it is not only the war itself -- but also what happens after the war. Because of the BMD, TSP comes out worse off during and after the war. During the war, if it decides to use nukes -- it comes across as irresponsible, justifies massive counter-strike from India and loses. Because of which after the war it is likely to lose its nukes. If during the war, it does not use nukes -- it loses and its own populace makes it gives up the nukes because they did not prevent an outcome that was supposedly the basis for keeping the nukes.

IMO, Manoj Joshi is solely focused on efficacy of the outcome of a single strike-defense combination. Not the strategic maneuverability afforded to the decision makers because of NFU, and in a situation where many outside powers may lean heavily during a war. BMD allows for the opponent to have to make a heavier strike with multiple launches -- thereby removing all constraints and restraints for retaliatory strike; and a very strong case for being irresponsible and its denuclearization post-war.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Aug 2012 21:47

Lahat flies out on own power from the barrel, ie not launched using a charge. in Arjun case it uses a rifled plastic liner to fit smoothly.
Excalibur would be a proper guided shell ie able to withstand lot more G.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2712
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 14 Aug 2012 01:04

I feel there is value in keeping our ABM capabilities/numbers a secret or at least understating them substantially.

While deterrence is achieved by stating one's arsenal, in the case of ABM, the opposite might be true. The exception would be cases like the Star Wars program, which had the objective of straining the SU economy.

Are there any other scenarios where the advertisement of one's ABM capabilities actually help?

I can think of a couple: a conventional retaliation to a terrorist attack (or) a first conventional strike to say, re-take POK (or) a nuclear first strike. The last one doesn't apply to us.

The point I am trying to make is that a public statement of ABM capabilities tends to make more sense when pursuing a "pro-active military strategy"

Thoughts?

Will X-post in deterrence thread


Gaurav_S
BRFite
Posts: 786
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 15:40
Location: Out on other planet
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gaurav_S » 16 Aug 2012 07:21

India plans to establish two more missile testing ranges

Aim is to conduct multiple missions simultaneously

India is planning to set up two more missile testing ranges with a number of missions coming up in the next few years.

Ranges overloaded

Top Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) officials said that with the present Integrated Test Range off the coast of Odisha getting “overloaded,” plans were on to establish similar facilities along the East Coast.

Need to cover more area

“We need to extend and augment our range capabilities geographically. We need to cover more area,” one of the officials told The Hindu while declining to identify the places.
The works

The official said that each of the upcoming facilities would be a full-fledged testing range to support both short-range and long-range missions. It would have a launch control centre, a few launch pads, a blockhouse and state-of-the-art communication network, besides permanent monitoring stations such as telemetry and electro-optical tracking.

According to him, a number of tests would be coming up simultaneously in future and there was a need to expand the activities to multiple places so that more missions could be conducted at the same time.
Over two-three years

Initially to begin as an interim test range and later an integrated test range, the new facilities, to be given shape within two to three years, would enable DRDO missile technologists to have a nationwide range. These ranges would be acting in tandem to track the performance of a missile over long distances.

Pointing out that very few countries had missile testing ranges, flight testing or land ranges for conducting trials, like India does, starting from battle tanks to air defence, he said the country’s geography permitted India to have them at multiple places.

Besides the two ranges along the East Coast, the DRDO was also planning to establish a Floating Test Range, which would include radars and launch facilities on a ship, another official said.

Problems relating to safety and other issues could be overcome through a Floating Test Range, which could be used for testing missiles relating to air defence or ship-based Dhanush missiles.

MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby MN Kumar » 16 Aug 2012 19:12

Couldnt find an appropriate thread for this:
INS: Indian Nuclear Service by Bharat Karnad

The Task Force on National Security, chaired by Naresh Chandra, the all-purpose bureaucrat, had an open-ended brief. The one area, however, the Task Force was expressly told to keep off by the National Security Adviser related to the country’s nuclear deterrent in all its aspects. This may be because the Manmohan Singh regime is intent on leaving a legacy — a spruced-up nuclear secretariat — and it didn’t want the Task Force to muck around, disturbing and complicating the efforts already underway with its recommendations. The former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command (SFC), Lt. Gen. B.S. Nagal, was hired after his retirement to, in effect, fashion in the PMO an Indian version of the professional and effective Pakistani nuclear secretariat — Strategic Plans Division (SPD), Chaklala.

What Lt. Gen. Nagal picked up about nuclear strategic issues during his tenure at SFC is hard to say. As an infantry officer (Jat Regiment), he has left no paper trail in terms of articles in professional journals, etc. to betray his thinking, certainly nothing on strategic subjects. Then again, may be he was selected because of the PMO’s confidence that he would implement plans it had chalked out.

Actually, as I have argued in my books and other writings, Pakistan SPD’s professionalism and competence in nuclear strategic matters is principally the result of painstaking and rigorous efforts over a long period of time to seed and nurture a force manned by a specialist cadre, and this is no bad thing for our SFC and the nuclear cell in the PMO to emulate. It will be an improvement on what presently exists. The capacity for deterrence heuristics requires considerable acquaintance with nuclear deterrence history and practice, enabling the SFC and the PMO nuclear cell to give the intellectual lead in shaping nuclear strategy.

The central point about the success of the SPD and every other nuclear force is that the nuclear secretariat is run by a corps of officers with real expertise — top to bottom — who are recruited after intensive tests and psychological profiling. In a recent book, Vice-Admiral Verghese Koithara (retd) delves into some of the complexities of operationalising the nuclear arsenal and refers to appropriate “socialisation” of the personnel involved without, however, once mentioning the need for a dedicated nuclear officer cadre. Such a body of officers is at the core of professionalising the nuclear forces.

Indeed, without a specialist cadre that is fully versed and immersed in all aspects of nuclear deterrence — from designs of nuclear weapons and missiles to conceiving and designing command and control networks, from nuances in deterrence theory to practical problems of mobility, and from nuclear forensics to technology for secure command links — the country will be stuck with what we have: a Strategic Forces Command with military officers on its rolls who are professionals in conventional warfare but rank amateurs in the nuclear field. They have to perforce learn on the job, only for such learning to go waste once their three-year term ends, and they are posted elsewhere. Appointments at all SFC levels are considered by the regular military officers as posting to be ticked before returning to the parent service. This is not how a professional SFC is obtained.

And yet such a strategic force leadership is an absolute imperative. The lack of nuclear specialists in SFC ranks should concern the military but apparently it doesn’t. Most uniformed officers are contemptuous of IAS officers looking after child and family welfare one day, rural electrification the next, and on the third day landing up as defence secretary with not a clue and nothing to recommend such posting other than their ability to negotiate the bureaucratic maze of regulations and rules of business. This is no different from the SFC staffing pattern. Conventional military officers manning the SFC come into the Command with minimal familiarity on nuclear issues.

On nuclear security matters, everybody in and out of uniform seems to have an opinion. It is the mark of a generalist culture which pervades the military as well, and is the reason why it will be difficult to wean the conventional military services away from the system of rotational postings in the SFC. Nuclear security discipline-specialisation can happen only if a “nuclear forces” option is made available to newly minted officers at the NDA stage with a follow-on course before commissioning exclusively into the SFC.

We will know soon enough what Lt. Gen. Nagal has been up to at the PMO. But whatever he is doing, it wouldn’t have hurt to have the Task Force on National Security report on nuclear forces. Much of what the Task Force has recommended in the conventional military sphere seems reasonable and, even though there was no nuclear security-knowledgeable person as such in the group, it would have been useful to juxtapose their thoughts on the restructuring and functioning of the SFC with what the PMO is doing to revamp nuclear command and control systems.

The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55024
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2012 23:46

Please post in Deterrence thread and the CDS thread.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pranav » 19 Aug 2012 10:26

Anti-electrical carbon fiber cluster munitions -

An anti-electrical weapon, the CBU-94/B, was first used by the U.S. in the Kosovo War in 1999. These consist of a TMD (Tactical Munitions Dispenser) filled with 202 BLU-114/B "Soft-Bomb" submunitions. Each submunition contains a small explosive charge that disperses 147 reels of fine conductive fiber of either carbon or aluminum-coated glass. Their purpose is to disrupt and damage electric power transmission systems by producing short circuits in high-voltage power lines and electrical substations. On the first attack, these knocked out 70% of the electrical power supply in Serbia. There are reports that it took 500 people 15 hours to get one transformer yard back on line after being hit with these weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_mu ... electrical

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rajanb » 19 Aug 2012 10:39

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/

Control navigation tests of LR-SAM conducted in Israel successful | Missile's vertical launch process established



By Anantha Krishnan M

Express News Service

Bangalore: Indian and Israeli missile scientists achieved a breakthrough with the successful control navigation tests (CNTs) of the Long-Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM). Being jointly developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), the Rs 2,606-crore Project LR-SAM aims to develop an advanced naval air defence system for Indian Navy's P-15A Kolkata Class destroyers. The missile has a range of 70 km, weighing around 275 kg. Interestingly, both the DRDO and the IAI officials succeeded in keeping the test schedule and its results under wraps for over a month.
Sources confirm to Express that the CNTs were held at one of the test ranges of IAI near Tel Aviv on July 16 and July 18. “Earlier tests (inclined launches) were to ascertain the ballistic performance and now we have done the CNTs. The latest tests (vertical launches) are initial steps towards validation of the systems. We will now have another set of tests with seeker and guidance systems, scheduled to be held in Israel, at the end of this year (December). This should pave way for production,” sources said.
During the recent tests, the missiles have reportedly shown good navigation and control performance, achieving all mission objectives. The missiles followed the text-book flight trajectories and all the onboard algorithms performed as designed. “We are excited about the test results as both the front and rear servo actuation systems performed as expected. The launcher performance and the critical vertical launch process were also achieved,” sources said.
The final validation tests are expected to begin in India by early 2013, followed user trials from the ships. “This is a very important joint venture weapon development project for India and Israel. We are developing a new weapon and there were some hiccups, which we have overcome now. The completion of CNTs shifts the focus to home-on-target tests and subsequent delivery of the LR-SAM systems to Indian Navy,” sources said.
Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), a top-rated DRDO lab, is spearheading LR-SAM's activities from the Indian side. The missile had its first successful ballistic flight test (short-range) in Israel in May 2010. The rear section of the missile is being developed by DRDL and the front section by IAI.
Naval sources tell Express that the weapon system, including radar, is currently being integrated on the first ship at Mazagon Dock Limited, Mumbai.
Copyright@The New Sunday Express

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_22906 » 19 Aug 2012 16:14

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/08/new-nag-carrier-botches-trials.html

The July trials of an improved version of DRDO's Nag missile carrier (NAMICA) at the Mahajan Field Firing Range (MFFR) in Rajasthan have ended badly, say reports. Apart from most of the missiles under test failing to hit their targets, the tracked vehicle also "underperformed",wire service PTI quotes unnamed DRDO officials as saying. It also quotes DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta as saying the trials were a "partial success". I've spoken to sources who confirm the report.

The NAMICA Mk.1 (seven have been ordered), tested by the Army between 2007-10, had certain deficiencies while operating in high ambient temperatures. The Army then demanded a host of changes on the improved Mk.2 platform (of which they intend to purchase at least 200 if it meets all requirements), including reduction of all-up weight to 15 tons, improved reliability of missile launcher platform drive mechanisms, provision of higher-resolution target acquisition sight for the gunner, enhanced user-friendliness in acquisition of target through reduced offset between sight and missile seeker-acquired target scene image, improved amphibious performance, and provision of a target surveillance and acquisition sight for the crew commander.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2012 19:46

Okay.. V&V in the product research and development life-cycle has missing steps I guess., especially in the system design and testing phase. Once gone to user trials, if things are continuously showing poor performance, there is a big gap in getting to know the actual user environment or setup... this is the gap DRDO should chase after and fix it.. before even it goes to design.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sum » 19 Aug 2012 21:41

Apart from most of the missiles under test failing to hit their targets, the tracked vehicle also "underperformed",wire service PTI quotes unnamed DRDO officials as saying. It also quotes DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta as saying the trials were a "partial success". I've spoken to sources who confirm the report.

End of the road for NAMICA too?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 19 Aug 2012 21:43

As far as the vehicle goes, all the improvements being asked for

provision of higher-resolution target acquisition sight for the gunner, enhanced user-friendliness in acquisition of target through reduced offset between sight and missile seeker-acquired target scene image, improved amphibious performance, and provision of a target surveillance and acquisition sight for the crew commander.


were already demonstrated in Arjun Mk2

Anyways, hopefully we will see a day when shoulder launched Nag also makes its debut, in RPG form factor, it will not miss the parked Erieyes at airbases from standoff distances

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Katare » 19 Aug 2012 22:01

As per this comment at Aroor's blog, it seems they were testing an Italian MMW seeker for mk2 version before integrating new long range Indian seeker. Nag mk1 with IIR seeker is tested and ready to go, these results are for MMW seeker!

Dr. Rajaram Gopalakutty. Head Systems Development, DRDO said...
Too hell with all with you who think DRDO is an underperformer and believe that we Indian Scientists can not create world class products.

Now let me inform you bunch of ill informed idiots that Nag mk1 works fine as per ASQR requirements.

Nag Mk2 is a more advanced, practically a 4th generation missile. We were hoping to get the results as achieved with the limited range Mmw Italian seekers used on the missile. Further India is close to complete the development of our own high range high resolution mmw seekers which will be employed in the Nag by end of this year.
The vehicle has`nt failed as well. Its merely in advanced stages of development. Keeping weight low is neither easy nor a game of weeks. We will develop it fully by end of this year and whatever we have achieved is as expected from the limited parameters under tests.

I would like to tell you that these tests were developmental tests and the data acquired in this test will be used for further enhancement of the missile.

The missile is already made lighter, with internal construction ready for a new indian seeker. The namica drive vehicle is also redeveloped with better armour, better resolution sights, automatic target acquisition system, full network centric capability and improved drive and amphibious capability.

We will do it in time. And for you idiots who feel we are behind. Let me tell you that we have bridged the technology gap completely and we are developing cutting edge technology, latest generation equipments and are building them at a lower cost than imported materials with very high level of quality. Infact DRDO labs are at their peak of technology absorption in almost all areas and in next 10 years or so we will be head to head with US, west european development organisations. This is what we have achieved after paying a huge price and years.

So stop cribbing and earn us some money and pay your taxes fully...be honest and get the best service. Be smart enough to choose a good government and not hay chase a single party which you have done for 70 years. Do your job fine...and well do ours.

India will be a superpower by 2050.
APJ Abdul Kalam believes do and so does my team and entire drdo, isro and all government bodies and private sector companies now partnering with us.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Surya » 20 Aug 2012 03:57

doubt if it is really the good Dr

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2012 08:49

It is not about generation or technology.. but the product life-cycle phase and project management issue. During user-trials, one should only expect parametric corrections and some acceptable failures (as these are hard-rts, it is easy to fail). But, it is important to know the failure is within parameters. OTOH, it is always better to fix them during design phase..and much cheaper in the sense, by way of money, time and unnecessary DDM reports. If the user wants to participate in the r&d testing phase, it should be welcomed... to provide private feedback. But, they are free to go public when they are testing it. It could be the norm per MoD, calling DDM members to disseminate information. so, it is better that we test as early as possible.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 20 Aug 2012 09:05

^^I for one think that anything on Mr. Aroor's blog besides his (pirated) pictures should be banned on this forum. He has nothing good to say about Indian products (unless they are too new or just in development and not been tested yet to find a fault). He is always touting foreign stuff as well. It is nothing but propaganda. I don't know why we should give him more hits than he deserves for his pics. I hope some of you at least agree with me.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55024
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 20 Aug 2012 09:10

DRDO collaborates with Kolkata uty and IIT Chennai


DHAMRA (Odhisa): A university in Kolkata is helping the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) develop a high power microwave as a futuristic weapon.

The defence research unit has also tied-up with IIT, Chennai for seven projects. With Indian universities finally becoming research partners, DRDO R&D chief W Selvamurthy feels confident of timely completion of projects.

DRDO has taken over an entire floor at IIT, Chennai for joint research.
"This used to happen abroad. Now, Indian universities have also come of age and are tying up with us in several projects. We are now looking at futuristic research on projects like an unmanned battlefield - on land, in air and under water and working on high-power lasers and microwave as weapons. We are trying to develop the 'global soldier' who can operate in any battlefield across the world. We are also concentrating on stealth technology and satellite-based security systems," Selvamurthy told TOI.

He believes that projects undertaken by DRDO may not have got delayed had Indian industry and universities provided necessary support earlier. "Unlike what people believe, there has been no delay on DRDO's part. Our 7,600 scientists conceptualised, designed and then built products as industry had not developed sufficiently then. In other countries like USA, industry takes over soon after a project has been conceptualised. Even Universities provide necessary assistance in research. This is slowly happening in India now. The General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) was finalised in 1985 and by 1993, we had the first prototype ready. There were additions and alterations to be made and we succeeded in developing the Mark-II in two years time. Now, the Army agrees that Arjun is better than the Russian-made T-90," the top scientist said.

He claims that DRDO took only 15 years in developing a fourth-generation aircraft like the Tejas from scratch while the Eurofighter has not yet been fully developed, even after 22 years. According to him, this is a normal life-cycle development period. "Now that Tejas has gone into production, we are already discussing an Advanced Middle Combat Aircraft (AMCA). We have worked with minimum resources. I have been to a submarine development unit in Russia where 20,000 scientists work. Our budget is also merely Rs 10,000 crore of which nearly half is spent on salaries and top-secret projects. Under the circumstances, there is little investment in R&D. These are aspects that need to be looked into as foreign arms suppliers are not keen that India develops indigenous capabilities," he said.

The DRDO won't give up on the Kaveri engine just as yet. One reason that Selvamurthy gives for not having succeeded in getting the Kaveri engines fitted to the Tejas is the absence of high-powered engine manufacturers in the country. Elsewhere, companies like GE and Rolls Royce manufacture engines for aircraft. Even the Tejas has had to fall back on GE engines. "We have managed to get 70 kilo Newton thrust out of the Kaveri engine. It has been tested for 55 hours on an IL-76. The Tejas requires a thrust of about 80 KNewtons. We shall try the engine on a Tejas and we believe that it will cover upto 80% flight envelop. We may use it for the trainers or even unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). There is also great possibility of use of the marine Kaveri engine," the DRDO R&D chief said. According to him, several foreign firms have expressed eagerness to partner with DRDO for an engine that can provide 130 KNewton thrust required for the AMCA. "In the last five years, the armed forces have ordered Rs 140,000 crore worth of equipment from us.

The same equipment would have cost thrice if procured from abroad. We have aided in employment generation. The confidence of the armed forces is going up everyday. Our weapons locating radars have proved to be better than those manufactured abroad. India's self-reliance ratio has now gone up to 50%. We need not be 100% self-reliant. Nobody is. The key should be to concentrate on critical and strategic defence systems and large volume items like clothing to save on unnecessary cash outflow," Selvamurthy added.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2012 18:19

Arun Menon, one can't ignore a site, when that site is not challenged either by MoD or DRDO for their news. One has to take things in constructive way.
--

It is a positive news on the Kaveri. Hope, they charter on an indigenous up-thrusted one onlee.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests