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.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 08:35

keshavchandra wrote:Current we are using russian turbofan engine. Drdo also have a project on turbofan, but I am not sure in what stage it is now may seniors have some relevent updates.


Not buying it, give me details of the russian engine that we are supposedly using and links which confirm the same. Russia is a signatory of MTCR how can it supply us with an engine which will be used in a missile with a range much greater than 300 Km.???

Shrinivasan wrote:Multiple sources have told that Nirbhay's engine is from Bearland... Maybe an indigenous engine is ini the works..


Multiple sources as in paanwala or news paper ???

I am averse to the claim that the engine is Russian unless I don't see confirmation coming from the right sources. America went all :(( :(( when Russia agreed to do ToT on cryogenic engine citing MTCR violation. I don't see any changes in the technology denial regime framed against India neither the Americans have suddenly grown a liking for India that they would allow Russia to do such blasphemy. I am willing to accept that the Russians have supplied the engine just give me solid evidence.

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 Nov 2012 10:34

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... eView.html

As for the engine India has struck a deal with Russia for transfer of technology of the Russian Saturn 36MT engine.

New Delhi also has a deal with Moscow which allows it access to the high-precision signal of Moscow's Glonass satellite navigation system.

--
Hindu article by TS subramanium talks of turbo prop engine leading to speculation of a 2nd model using prop-fan engine tech of cancelled KH101-ER model.

engine could be a derivative of the PTAE7 with a powerful hot section based on 36MT TOT, kind of how RR(hot)+MTU(cold)+hispano suiza(hydraulics,exhaust) "own" their sections of the EJ200 engine.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 15:58

Singha wrote:engine could be a derivative of the PTAE7 with a powerful hot section based on 36MT TOT, kind of how RR(hot)+MTU(cold)+hispano suiza(hydraulics,exhaust) "own" their sections of the EJ200 engine.


This is the very likely case about Nirbhay's engine, America won't allow Russia to violate MTCR. Still I doubt the ToT part, most probably it might have been consultancy provided by them as in the case of Arihant's nuke reactor.

Can any Garu enlighten us why PTAE 7 can or cannot be used as an engine for cruise missile ???

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby negi » 13 Nov 2012 16:39

Sagar G wrote:Can any Garu enlighten us why PTAE 7 can or cannot be used as an engine for cruise missile ???

No garu here onlee on daroo :mrgreen: ; when you say cruise missile the key aspects are payload, range (for a given flight profile). For 30 minutes flight duration Lakshya has a range of about 150 km (this is not for lo-lo-lo flight profile) , now if you want to lob at least 100 kg of warhead and say payload is 200kg (including warhead) one is only left with about 600kg more (to get closer to Lakshya's max take off weight) , question is what kind of range will you get for a CM of this size and form factor ?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 17:16

negi wrote:No garu here onlee on daroo :mrgreen:

:rotfl:

negi wrote:when you say cruise missile the key aspects are payload, range (for a given flight profile). For 30 minutes flight duration Lakshya has a range of about 150 km (this is not for lo-lo-lo flight profile) , now if you want to lob at least 100 kg of warhead and say payload is 200kg (including warhead) one is only left with about 600kg more (to get closer to Lakshya's max take off weight) , question is what kind of range will you get for a CM of this size and form factor ?


I am not talking about Lakshya saar only the engine. I want to know whether the engine can be used in cruise missile or is it not fit for that purpose ??? Can the engine sustain itself for the prolonged period and fulfill the requirements or whether a totally new engine has to be designed for propelling the cruise missile ???

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 18:30

@ Shiv Garu

While searching for GTRE Laghu engine I came across a LIVEFIST post on the matter and I think you might want to take a look at the article

Now, A Third Indigenous UAV Turbofan Effort

Is it really what I think it is ??? See something familiar there saar ???

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Nov 2012 19:22

The reason the PTAE-7 should not be used (or at least it won't be as efficient in the current form anyway) is because it has about 70% higher fuel usage per kilogram of mass it helps fly than what is need for an effective long range subsonic cruise missile. This makes the vehicle performance in range far less than desired (~550 km instead of 1000 km for the same fuel mass as a Tomahawk, for example)

Actually, this is a good point to do a parametric study of engine choice:
Consider the following:
a) Let's assume that the Nirbhay turns out like a stretched version of the Lakshya PTA and has similarities with the US Tomahawk missile
b) In assuming the same sizing, I will assume that the internal fuel carried is the same as that of the Tomahawk (1000 lbs/ ~454 Kg).
c) The tomahawk I am considering is using a Williams F107 Engine. (Check Google uncle for details on this engine if you like)
d) I would like to consider a choice of the F107, PTAE-7 and 36MT as possible engine choices
e) All three engines have the required thrust values needed to power the missile. Only difference is the fuel usage in cruise:

Code: Select all

---------Engine--------------------Fuel Usage (Kg/hr)------------------------Effective Range (km)----------
Williams F-107                       154.26                                      2500.0
PTAE-7                               260.10                                      1482.7
Saturn 36MT                          160.60                                      2401.3


This is of course not a surprise. The PTAE-7 is effectively a turbojet engine when what is required is a turbofan-ski (there are alternatives to a pure Turbofan available, as outlined by the 36MT design, for example. There are others as well).

Now note that the effective sizes and masses of the three engines are also different (PTA and Saturn engines being heavier and having a higher thrust rating than required by the Tomahawk outer mold line), so the range numbers above will be more detrimental for the two replacements of the F107.

Looking at the thrust numbers for the three engines:

Code: Select all

---------Engine--------------------Thrust (Kg)-------------Launch Weight with Booster (Kg)------------Missile Length (m)
Tomahawk/Williams F-107                       275.22                      1600                            6.25
Lakshya/PTAE-7                               400.10                        705                            ~3
Lakshya/Saturn 36MT                          450.00                         -                              -


So the obvious question that comes to mind is why the Lakshya uses a clearly overpowered engine on a much smaller airframe? The answer is maneuverability. The Lakshya is designed to do typical 3g flight maneuvers and is rated for up to 6g. So the logical extension has always been whether a reduction in the maneuverability of the Lakshya could be traded for increased mass of fuel for a cruise missile application? The answer is yes. But not with the PTAE-7 engine for reasons described previously. However, note that for the type of application in mind for the Nirbhay (i.e. launch from perhaps sea level areas just south of the Himalayas for a flight through/above the peaks and then into terrain hugging mode for the plains beyond) it might be required to maintain a lower fuel mass (and hence overall mass and sizing) in return for higher maneuverability through the valleys and peaks, if required. Whether the decision to go for higher maneuverability has been made or not is going to decide the overall scaling beyond the Lakshya for the Nirbhay. However, the reason the range is less compared to the Tomahawk (i.e. about 1000 km) when it could have had a much higher range could be due exactly to this fact.

Now, the Lakshya even in its present form was always suspected of being easily converted to a cruise missile because of its engine performance and MTOW design for 705 kg. The thing is, the 705 kg is not accounted for in the typical flight profile masses (even if you are conservative) and the missile could easily add a 100 kg warhead and some additional fuel for a one way straight flight of >600 km. The only restrictions were the avionics and navigation required (and the will to do this!). The Nirbhay, then, being derived from the Lakshya has been long time coming from a systems standpoint.

The Nirbhay-M (For the Maneuverable version for the sake of this conversation) therefore, is likely to be a slightly shorter than Tomahawk with larger control fins like the Lakshya. We might also see the Nirbhay-LR with smaller control fins and a longer length very similar to the Tomahawk. But the PTAE-7 was always the achilles heel for converting the Lakshya into a cruise missile. Hence the Russian connection. The performance of the Nirbhay-M and -LR variations are highlighted below as a function of payload/warhead mass possibilities on a surface map of fuel mass and corresponding range of the missile choice.

Image Image

What these maps will show is that there is a versatile design space available between the two original design points just waiting for inputs from other system requirements and user preference. But that said, the PTAE-77 performance will be lower compared with the US and Russian options. Is that necessarily a bad thing? If you look at the two plots, you can see that the Nirbhay-LR model created by lowering the maneuverability does afford very reasonable ranges. So Why go for the Russian option unless the need is for range and maneuverability. The US option in this regard is not usable even if it were available: it is too low on thrust capacity.

All in all, expect the Nirbhay to have either:
a) >2000 km range with lower maneuverability using the 36MT engine
b) ~1500 km range with lower maneuverability using either the PTAE-7 or some variant of it used for the Nirbhay (NE-7?)
c) ~1500 km range plus high maneuverability using the 36MT engine
d) >800 km range plus high maneuverability using the PTAE-7/NE-7 engine

ImageImageImage

P.S.: I have been wondering for quite some time about the Saturn 36MT. It would of course be better to develop a turbofan version around the PTAE-7 but that is a snake-pit in terms of risks involved. We cannot simply use the turbojet core of the PTAE-7 as the basis for a turbofan because of external diameter restrictions. Which means that the current core must be made even smaller. Not a trivial task under any conditions. It is only in this light that I find myself agreeing with a straight buy of the 36MT: it helps to ensure the product gets delivered on time for a change.

Anyway, JMT and all that.

-Vivek
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 13 Nov 2012 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

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 Nov 2012 19:32

does the graphs take into account the indic situation of launch from sea level and having to climb to around 12,000ft to clear through the ladakh, uttaranchal and NE valleys before descending again to hug the tibet plains? thats going to burn extra fuel for sure esp as that will be in initial part of flight when the fuel tank is also heavy and fullish.
GLCM and SLCM will be our first applications.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Nov 2012 19:39

Singha wrote:does the graphs take into account the indic situation of launch from sea level and having to climb to around 12,000ft to clear through the ladakh, uttaranchal and NE valleys before descending again to hug the tibet plains? thats going to burn extra fuel for sure esp as that will be in initial part of flight when the fuel tank is also heavy and fullish.
GLCM and SLCM will be our first applications.


Yes, the factors are built into the empirical correlations for range. I modified them for terminal phase being at Tibetan plains. Of course, the range improves more when you consider that the Nirbhay will then be terrain hugging at ~10,000 feet ASL. Helps improve range compared with doing so at 0 feet ASL.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 19:58

Thank you vivek_ahuja saar for replying with your detailed analysis.

vivek_ahuja wrote:It is only in this light that I find myself agreeing with a straight buy of the 36MT: it helps to ensure the product gets delivered on time for a change.


But wouldn't this alleged buy constitute an MTCR violation by Russia ??? I mean how come the Americans are not doing their usual haai tauba ??? Its because of this very silence from the Americans that makes me believe that we haven't outrightly bought Russian engine but they might have helped us make one.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Nov 2012 20:03

Sagar G wrote:But wouldn't this alleged buy constitute an MTCR violation by Russia ??? I mean how come the Americans are not doing their usual haai tauba ??? Its because of this very silence from the Americans that makes me believe that we haven't outrightly bought Russian engine but they might have helped us make one.


It might very well be so. I for one would not like anything better than to see our own engine (made with Rooskie help perhaps) powering this bird. But I am concerned about another Kaveri black hole sucking this project down with it. If they have bypassed this potential area and have been successful in modifying the PTAE-7 similar to the 36MT, then I will be delivering free mithai to all BRF folks here. :)

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 Nov 2012 20:18

lately we have let it be known indirectly that brahmos could have 500km range and that on its purely rus engine. so on paper Rus and India are both playing by the Khan rulebook but who knows what is really happening. the degree and extent of help extended by the 200 or so Rus experts on Arihant (who the PM personally thanked in his launch ceremony speech) is not also clearly revealed for obvious reason.

imo not being able to take any route over the himalayas for a SLCM/GLCM without cost in range having to climb to 20,000ft+ is a irritant that a air launched CM could solve. Cheen could map the potential approach routes and lay SAM traps or atleast radar coverage along these chokepoints....though it will be a huge undertaking over a undulating 2000km of mountains.

the Boeing AGM129 appears to be a really cool weapon looking at shape and specs...incl that flat nozzle to dissipate the IR signature
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1203

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 13 Nov 2012 20:32

vivek_ahuja wrote:But I am concerned about another Kaveri black hole sucking this project down with it.


Not going to happen again, DRDO has learned it's lessons. I think we would have to wait till the first test of Nirbhay to get any idea about it's engine.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby negi » 13 Nov 2012 20:58

MTCR and other rules were always these moving goal posts to keep small fish in one corner , after POK-II, success of IGMDP and PAD we have been witnessing a slow but gradual change in Unkil's approach with regards to engaging India.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3053
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 13 Nov 2012 21:07

As it is common to gauge against Tomahawk for any cruise missile, here is some snapshots to gauge performance of Nirbhay

~1300 kg Tomahawk has a maximum range of ~1600 km

And it is reported,

~1000 kg Nirbhay has a range of ~1000 km.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 14 Nov 2012 16:40

vivek_ahuja wrote: If they have bypassed this potential area and have been successful in modifying the PTAE-7 similar to the 36MT, then I will be delivering free mithai to all BRF folks here. :)


I thought one gentleman on BR had promised some x kg / MT of mithia for something, something, something !!!!!!

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 15 Nov 2012 05:52

Singha wrote:lately we have let it be known indirectly that brahmos could have 500km range

AFAIK this is by changing cruise altitude to a higher one

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 15 Nov 2012 05:55

Sagar G wrote:@ Shiv Garu

While searching for GTRE Laghu engine I came across a LIVEFIST post on the matter and I think you might want to take a look at the article

Now, A Third Indigenous UAV Turbofan Effort

Is it really what I think it is ??? See something familiar there saar ???


LOL! :D Good catch. There is only one BRFite who uses paintbrush in that unprofessional manner to draw a stupid looking arrow and that's me. Yes I think LIVEFIST owes me one. The arrow points to a BLISK and I had lnked the image on the forum.

The original is here
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... k.jpg.html

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nachiket » 15 Nov 2012 09:24

Aroor seems to be becoming as shameless as chorgupta.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 15 Nov 2012 21:29

It will be interesting to see his response if shiv saar you decide to point it out to him that it's your clicked image and not his. Sometime ago he had carried out a series of posts detailing his conversation with some magazine editor which had used parts of his blogposts without his permission, was delivering sermons then about IPR. Now when caught in the act himself, whether he chooses to apologize or not will show for what he truly is.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby krishnan » 15 Nov 2012 21:43

interesting that he has approved shiv's comment .... lol


Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2715
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 16 Nov 2012 02:13

Vivek: thanks for the detailed analysis.

Btw, 10000 ft is not exactly terrain-hugging. Methinks we havent perfected/created TERCOM maps & the ability to program the missile in near real time to permit tree top level flying.

One step at a time

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Nov 2012 02:19

Prem Kumar wrote:Btw, 10000 ft is not exactly terrain-hugging.


It is when when the mean altitude of the region is 10,000 feet (ASL) as well. We are talking about ASL, not AGL when we measure these numbers.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Nov 2012 02:27

Kanson wrote:As it is common to gauge against Tomahawk for any cruise missile, here is some snapshots to gauge performance of Nirbhay

~1300 kg Tomahawk has a maximum range of ~1600 km

And it is reported,

~1000 kg Nirbhay has a range of ~1000 km.


I was talking not of the strategic variant of the tomahawk, not the tactical one. These had ranges up to 2500 km.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2715
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 16 Nov 2012 02:46

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Btw, 10000 ft is not exactly terrain-hugging.


It is when when the mean altitude of the region is 10,000 feet (ASL) as well. We are talking about ASL, not AGL when we measure these numbers.


Good point. I was also going by the Tarmak report that said that Nirbhay has a cruising altitude of between 500m to 4 KM

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2012/10/indias-first-made-in-bangalore-missile.html

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2012 05:59

Prem Kumar wrote:Btw, 10000 ft is not exactly terrain-hugging.

10.000 feet is terrain hugging in the Himalayan region.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2012 06:49

Are you referring to my mention of 10,000ft?

I meant in context of having to clear himalayas...you can terrain hug at 29000ft too as the missile crests the top of everest and starts the long descent in tfr more to the brown plains of tibet and the s300 radar post.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2012 08:05

Singha wrote:Are you referring to my mention of 10,000ft?

I meant in context of having to clear himalayas...you can terrain hug at 29000ft too as the missile crests the top of everest and starts the long descent in tfr more to the brown plains of tibet and the s300 radar post.

No I was merely quoting from Prem Kumar's post.

Brahmos in the Himalayas is likely to have a higher range simply because 10,000 feet would be the minimum altitude to go anywhere. I am not at all sure that it would be necessary to snake around mountains to remain stealthy over the Himalayas, It would be difficult to detect or intercept even if the missile merely flew an almost straight line level with the highest peaks of a given region merely dodging the peaks.

An average altitude of 15.000 to 20,000 feet would clear all but the highest peaks and arrive just a few hundred meters above the Tibetan plateau so the descent would be a short one because Tibet itself is 15,000 feet up.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Nov 2012 08:40

shiv wrote:Brahmos in the Himalayas is likely to have a higher range simply because 10,000 feet would be the minimum altitude to go anywhere. I am not at all sure that it would be necessary to snake around mountains to remain stealthy over the Himalayas, It would be difficult to detect or intercept even if the missile merely flew an almost straight line level with the highest peaks of a given region merely dodging the peaks.

An average altitude of 15.000 to 20,000 feet would clear all but the highest peaks and arrive just a few hundred meters above the Tibetan plateau so the descent would be a short one because Tibet itself is 15,000 feet up.


Exactly. The Brahmos would be easily reaching its theoretical ranges of around ~500 Km when launched from a carrier aircraft and thrown at targets on the Tibetan plateau.

Not so for sea-level, ground based launches (alternatively, if the launchers are deployed in Ladakh, the situation gets equalized). Which is why it is so very important to deploy larger number of Brahmos ALCMs and a larger carrier aircraft for the same other than the Su-30s.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1906
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby wig » 16 Nov 2012 10:10

Testing of new set of short-range missiles reaches final stage

After the disturbing fact tumbled out that 97 per cent of Indian air defence equipment is obsolete, the armed forces are now in the final stages of trying out a new set of missiles that will target airborne threats at a very short range.

This will prove crucial in protecting military bases, frontline airbases, tank regiments, warships and also strategic assets. The last set of trials is slated for February 2013, sources confirmed.

India aims to spend $5.4 billion (approx Rs 29,000 crore) to buy some 1,000 missile launchers and 6,000 missiles for its Very Short-Range Air-Defence System (VSHORADS). This is the initial order. Once the missile is approved for purchase, licence production in India will commence making it the key weapon of choice, sources said. Public sector giant Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) will be the Indian production arm.

It was in March that the then Army Chief General VK Singh wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saying 97 per cent of the air defence systems were obsolete. India, at present, operates the Russian origin Igla-SA-18 weapon for very short range targets - between 6 to 8 km.

The new set of missiles will form the last ring of air defence and have to be very accurate and reliable in hitting targets. The prime aim is to tackle UAVs, helicopters and even low-flying fighter jets within immediate range.

The three contenders are the French missile maker MBDA with its weapon ‘Mistral’, Sweden’s Saab with its ‘RBS 70 NG’ and Russia’s new generation ‘Igla-SA-24’. Sources said the evaluation was done in extensive trials carried out during summer in Rajasthan in May.

A coastal environment trial was done near Visakhapatnam to check for firing capabilities in humid conditions. High-altitude trails have been conducted at Ladakh. The winter testing of the weapon will be done in early February in the northern part of the country.

Sources pointed out that India is looking at a system that can be deployed in multiple configurations and can be used by the Army, Air Force and Navy. One among the many configurations that the missile should have is that it should be man-portable that can easily lifted by troops in rugged mountain areas and carried to newer locations.

In the plains, the requirement is to fit it with a twin-launcher and base it on a high-mobility vehicle so that it can accompany the tank regiments to battle or be at airbases and other high-value targets like nuclear plants and large dams like the Bhakra
.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121116/nation.htm#9

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12505
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Nov 2012 11:38

Failure of Trishul is biting us. How come Stinger is not being evaluated. I thought it should rank right up there. RBS 70 original versions have a poor combat record(these were along with blowpipe first used in Afganistan before CIA deceided to realease Stingers)and even the latest versions requires 3 man crew and is line of sight weapon which will be useless in the mountains.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2012 11:45

imo trishul failure -> barak1, spyder, maitri (god knows its status)
lack of domestic manpad -> Igla getting obsolete -> this new deal

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3053
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 16 Nov 2012 15:16

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Kanson wrote:As it is common to gauge against Tomahawk for any cruise missile, here is some snapshots to gauge performance of Nirbhay

~1300 kg Tomahawk has a maximum range of ~1600 km

And it is reported,

~1000 kg Nirbhay has a range of ~1000 km.


I was talking not of the strategic variant of the tomahawk, not the tactical one. These had ranges up to 2500 km.


It will be more realistic to compare Nirbhay with conventional Tomahawk rather than Nuclear tipped Tomahawk which is not only discontinued but also obsolete in flight characteristics and thrust status to the latest block of conventional Tomahawk.

Won't the comparison looks good for Nirbhay if it is ~1600 km missile rather than 2500km missile? :D

SFC is the only reason which dissuades the potential use of PTAE-7 engine in Long Range Cruise missile. (Existing Lakshya PTA powered by PTAE-7 do have a endurance for covering 600 km range and it is again reported 600 km range Cruise missile in development based on Lakshya PTA sometime back.)

PS: Edited for clarification.
Last edited by Kanson on 16 Nov 2012 23:54, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12505
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Nov 2012 15:44

Singha- still suprised why the line of sight RBS 70 is considered and not the lastest version of the stinger. Now that we have made more USD 12 billion worth of arms from the USA and probaly anther 1 Billion for M-777 and more if we go for Colt M-4's etc, why not evaluate the Stinger?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby abhik » 16 Nov 2012 18:18

$5.4 billion for manpads! That's about what we are spending on the entire Akash SAM program.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2012 18:53

the stinger does have a incarnation mounted on a 4x4 vehicle. could be done on any vehicle of our choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger

the bradley linebacker system with stinger is also there for anyone who needs tracked mount

but I suspect the python5 part of spyder can better these systems at the short range role. and the real role would be man portable and shoulder fired missiles only

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 16 Nov 2012 19:59

Aditya_V wrote:Failure of Trishul is biting us.


IIRC Trishul wasn't an abject failure but till the weapon system matured the requirements had changed making Trishul obsolete so that's why none was inducted. It's the seeker arena mostly in which we are still not up there though we have made progress as in Nag and ABM missile seekers but still it will take some more time to get there.

abhik wrote:$5.4 billion for manpads!


That's the cost of not having a strong mil-ind base.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Gagan » 16 Nov 2012 22:44

RBS-70 is being "evaluated".
Who says India is going to buy it?
:wink:

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby krishnan » 17 Nov 2012 11:31

08:06 India to invest Rs 6,000 crore in new BrahMos missile: The Financial Express reports:' New Delhi: India has inked a Rs 6,000-crore joint venture with Russia under which the latter will supply 200 high-precision supersonic cruise missile BrahMos to the IAF. In its wake, India has set up another manufacturing and system integration plant in Thiruvananthapuram to boost production of the missiles. The Cabinet Committee on Security recently approved the air version of the BrahMos. Both the Indian Army and Navy have already inducted BrahMos� land and sea versions in their respective inventory....'


http://www.financialexpress.com/news/in ... n/1032339/

This piece is interesting

The Indo-Russian BrahMos integrated in Kerala will be retrofitted on the Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighter jets. The integration of the air version of the missile will be done by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), and the tests are scheduled for December. The air version of the missile, with a range of 290 km, is shorter than the other variants


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests