Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

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.
KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby KiranM » 25 Sep 2014 16:52

Shrinivasan wrote:
KiranM wrote:Just out of curiosity, why does IAF need SSM missile squadrons? To target enemy airfields? ...
Kiran, Prithvi I, the 150Km range SSM was with the Army (Missile regiments), IAF wanted a missile with slightly longer legs... this was meant for SEAD/DEAD. Agni series was with Strategic Forces Command which was tasked with a nuclear role.

You need to read my entire post to answer my question.

KiranM wrote:Just out of curiosity, why does IAF need SSM missile squadrons? To target enemy airfields? In the era of joint/ integrated warfare, cannot IA missile regiments be tasked for same? IMHO IA rocket & missile artillery need to be increased in numbers so as to support IAF SEAD just as IAF has to support IA with CAS.


Also operational control of Agni missiles are with SFC (a joint command) through Army Missile groups/ regiments.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Yagnasri » 25 Sep 2014 17:10

But use of Prudvi and other such missiles considered as serious escalation as per our aman ki asha crowds. Will the forces be willing to use such missiles in the initial stages of war itself for tactical reasons?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 449
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby dinesh_kimar » 25 Sep 2014 19:07

Changes in Arjun gun barrel for Mk 2, to fire a clgm....any gurus can give info?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2014 19:53

KiranM, The IAF version of Prithvis is custom developed for them. It has longer range and lighter payload. Its part of their deep strike mission when the Prithvi's were just introduced and it gave the m operational experience. The Prithvi has very good CEP.
The IA Prithvis are part of their forward edge of battle strike doctrine. IA wants to control depth upto 150km of the frontline.
So they are different roles.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Prem Kumar » 25 Sep 2014 20:31

What exactly is a scorpion bomb? First time hearing it. Smithsonian website has this to say: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-to-make-a-scorpion-bomb-154013653/?no-ist

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby KiranM » 25 Sep 2014 20:34

ramana wrote:KiranM, The IAF version of Prithvis is custom developed for them. It has longer range and lighter payload. Its part of their deep strike mission when the Prithvi's were just introduced and it gave the m operational experience. The Prithvi has very good CEP.
The IA Prithvis are part of their forward edge of battle strike doctrine. IA wants to control depth upto 150km of the frontline.
So they are different roles.


Ramana sir, I am aware of that. But for at least a range of 200km, IAF Prithvis need to be based 50km from borders in the midst of IA formations. My thinking is all could have been operated by IA Missile groups, with the 'longer range and lighter payload' version missile groups dedicated to support IAF in SEAD/ Airfield destruction; just like IAF tasks Jaguar/ Mig-27 flights/ squadrons for CAS to IA. This eases logistics, does not duplicate infrastructure and helps in role masking (maskirovka).

Earlier IA might have been satisfied with a depth of 150km. But with nirbhay and shouryas they will not be restricted to X km. Enemy airfields or ammo dumps, they are ultimately targets for similar platforms/ munitions which need to be operated in the same way. Plus they are not for high frequency or 'danger close' usage like choppers (of IA AAC) to be integrated with the infantry/ armour units they support.

My argument is in this era of joint warfare, it makes more sense for IAF to relinquish SSM missile role to IA and instead plan jointly with long range IA Rocket/ Missile Artillery for SEAD, airfield interdiction and flight package ingress/ egress support.

vipins
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 17:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby vipins » 25 Sep 2014 23:15

X-Post

CCS nod to Rs1,000 crore deal for procuring Barak missiles
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is understood to have cleared the deal for procuring the Israeli air defence missiles which would be deployed on Navy’s aircraft carriers that are sans air defence missile systems to target an incoming enemy aircraft or missile, sources said in New Delhi. The missiles are to be put on board aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya and INS Virat — Navy’s two operational warships which have been without air defence cover.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 25 Sep 2014 23:50

Karan,

Your post does not completely reflect the flow of events.

I was serving then and have a fair view of the situation. I was well acquainted with many of the participants who fought. I was myself serving on one of the IN Ships deployed to interdict Pakistani SLOC.

Here is my assessment.

There is a saying that Armies always train to fight like they fought the previous war. It was very true in the Indian context.

In the late 70s, 80s & early 90s IAF practiced 1971 type conflicts. IN Sea Harriers practiced Chittagong type attacks & Falklands type air defence.

We inducted huge numbers of MiG23 & MiG27 ground attack fighters (80+ & 160+ respectively), if memory serves right.

One of the major roles of IAF was supporting IA, and these aircraft were to provide support. Interestingly, aircraft like Toofani, Mystere, Su-7 were historically inducted in huge numbers for same role.

On the contrary the US indoctrinated PAF focused on Air Superiority, and Counter Air. They rentlessly attacked Indian Airfields in Counter Air, engaged in dogfight and rarely offered ground support. They only did ground attack in rare cases when 4 Jat crossed Ichhogil Canal threatening Lahore. They never bothered to support their forces at Longewala.

Aircraft like Canberra & Jaguar that replaced Canberra did interdiction.

The only aircraft that had PGM capability was Mirage 2000 and its horrendously expensive Matra BGL guided by the Atlis pod.

The Jaguars were being modified to carry Litening Pod and bombs with PGM kits, however, the modifications were still on during Kargil.

In the 90s, the IAF MiG23 & MiG27 fleet practiced rocketing & bombing and attacking at low level.

Most rocket attacks & bombing attacks have to be made at within a flight envelope of a limited range of altitude, speed, and dive angles.

Aircraft need to slow down to acquire targets in their conventional gunsights or LDP. After acquiring, they need to track, and thereafter develop a firing solution. Flying fast does not enable sufficient time to acquire, track & develop a firing solution. So fighters need to slow down. Fast jets are typically not maneuverable in these envelopes, and weapons were developed to exploit these vulnerabilities.

This vulnerability is compounded in mountains, where one can overfly a ridge or a valley in milliseconds, and fighters need to fly & orbit even slower.

The most lethal of these weapons in my opinion is the Swedish RBS70. The intelligent Swedes were the first to notice this. And there are Stingers & Mistrals. India too had acquired Igla and used it to down Pakistani helicopters. One incident here http://generalchandrashekhar.blogspot.i ... ir_28.html

While fighting in Afghanistan showed the lethal efficiency of MANPADS against attacking aircraft, for some reason we still believed we would be fighting a conventional war. While some aircraft were provisioned to be fitted with Chaff & Flare dispensers, cartridges were not available in adequate supply.

When the fighting started, both IA & IAF mis-appreciated the air situation.

1. IA wanted helicopter gunships. Mi-25/35 could not fly at those altitudes that IA could not appreciate.

2. A compromise solution of Mi-17 firing rockets was used and quickly stopped since the bulky transports were not nimble enough. One was lost to a Stinger. The helicopters had exhaust diffusers but no flares

3. Simultaneously IA started CAS using MiG23, 27 & 21s with rocket, bomb & gun attacks. This is what these squadrons trained for all their lives. If you watch Vayu Shakti exercises at Pokharan during those years, you’ll find them doing the same.

4. The vaunted gun of the MiG-27, same as the AK-630 used in IN, was expected to work like the A-10. The Soviets believed the MiG-27 was one up on the A-10 because it could also fly supersonic. At high altitudes combined with the rarefied atmosphere, the engine sucked air like a drowning man, and ingested the copious quantities of gas generated by the firing lead to a flameout.

5. After the loss of MiG-21 orbiting the area orbiting low & slow, IAF switched to High Altitude bombing. Target GPS coordinates were calculated before the strike and coupled with jury rigged GPS in the cockpit, the MiGs did high altitude bombing. Use of civilian grade GPS lead to lack of substantial results. Curiously, the US JDAM developed a few years later use the same principle, though in a much refined manner with the GPS seeker mounted on the bomb.

6. Given the lack of result in CAS, IAF started shifting to interdiction. Supply Routes & Dumps were static in nature.

7. Simultaneously the Mirages were used for PGM strikes, that were far & few in between. My understanding is around 10 PGM strikes were made. The Litening Pod acted as a good rangefinder to use with conventional bombing.

8. Jaguar re-engining is a lesson learnt from that conflict, the need for a better performing engine

9. Jaguar & MiG27 electronics upgrade was a lesson learnt from that conflict. The laser range finder already fitted to these aircraft was found to be lacking, and hence the Litening pod.

10. Su-30 too carries a Litening pod even though it has an integral range finder that works A2G.

So it’s not that IAF did not try CAS. They stopped it after the aircraft losses and the relative lack of success.

I know the then young pilot who suggested GPS assisted high altitude bombing, he was a board topper who cleared entrance to IITK, spent a few weeks, but left when he got his call to join the NDA. A tall chap, his height is such that he barely fitted within the upper limit of a human in a MiG cockpit.

Fighters are becoming more & more complex & expensive. Using them to engage enemy sangars equipped with Stingers is uneconomical.

Coming to the point of missiles for CAS, and to stay relevant to the missile thread,

India has mastered missile motors, control systems and has developed good & cheap inertial navigation systems. So while US uses JDAM, we can use cheap INS guided missiles as a non-line of sight weapon to do close support. I understand Prahaar is INS guided. The 150 km range of Prahaar will actually enable launch & command sites be further to the rear of combat zones, and the small size of the missile enables mobility of launcher, communication & command systems. It doesn’t need to be as maneuverable as its AAD cousin and can dispense with complex controls.

Forward Air Controllers or Artillery Observer/Spotter/Director or UAV like Searcher & Nishant can give enemy position of GPS coordinates using their hand held rangefinders or UAV payloads, and these can be near real time fed into the missiles and fired.

Maybe not Prahaar, but a 100+ km NLOS GPS/INS guided cheap missiles can be built using our existing capabilities.

Coming to control of assets,

Assets are acquired to develop or retain capability. Helicopters are needed for close air support to army formations for both offence & defence. To fulfill that capability, helicopter assets are required. Unless IAF hands over responsibility of having that capability to IA helicopters & missiles, then we will not be able to build sufficient organic helicopter capability in IA and Regiment of Artillery.

If the IAF says my MiG-21 can bomb & rocket targets 150 km away, it weakens the Regiment of Artillery case of acquiring Prahaar.

Instead the IAF needs to focus on Air Dominance & Deep Interdiction where its expensive & complex fighters are better utilized.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 26 Sep 2014 00:11

Karan M wrote:You are mixing up effectiveness with vulnerability. Fast jets are more survivable in CAS because they have the speed and energy to ingress and egress rapidly. Helicopters on the other hand, if detected are far more vulnerable. However the very speed that makes fighters more safe, makes them ineffective against hard to locate targets which require eyeball Mk1, even if it in turn is peering into a sensor and risk friendly targets.


While I covered the lack of effectiveness of fighters, I forgot to respond why helicopters are effective.

Agility, not speed, is the key to surviving MANPADS. MANPADS have small control surfaces, and cannot turn effectively as well as a conventional missile. A helicopter is the epitome of agility, and on detection can rapidly manoeuver while deploying countermeasures. A fighter flying low & slow like Ajay's MiG21 flies linearly, and cannot gain sufficient momentum well in time to outfly the MANPADS. Ajay's loss clearly indicated the ineffectiveness of fast jets in CAS.

In 1971, Denzil Keelor too lost his MiG21 in the same way http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... Chamb.html

However, not one Mi25/35 was lost in Sri Lanka.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Shrinivasan » 26 Sep 2014 01:37

In one of the latest tests of the Brahmos Surface to Surface missile, it was launched from a mobile autonomous launcher (MAL) located in the launching complex - III of the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-sea, this was to test the missile against hidden land targets...

see the test report
On 8 July 2014, Brahmos Aerospace conducted the 44th test launch of the missile from the ITR to a target designated 290 km away. It was the first test of the missile in supersonic dive mode against a hidden land target using a new Indian software algorithm and multiple satellite navigation systems for guidance, without the usual homing system.

My question is, if it were launched from ITR at a target 290 km away, what land mass would it have impacted? I scoured the map for any uninhabitted islands of the Orissa coast and didn't find any. Methinks they impacted on the sea, if so, how can they call it a hidden target?

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/BrahMos-Missile-Achieves-High-Accuracy-Against-Hidden-Land-Targets/2014/07/08/article2320848.ece

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby KrishnaK » 26 Sep 2014 02:33

tsarkar wrote: However, not one Mi25/35 was lost in Sri Lanka.
Did the LTTE have access to MANPADs ?

To answer my own question, yes. From Story of Thambimuththus SAM
The desire of the Tamil Tigers for SAM capability existed as early as 1986. During "Operation Tiger" led by Tamilnadu DIG intelligence K. Mohandas, the Tamil nadu police captured SAMs, AK-47, rocket launchers and pistols. According to Tamil Nadu sources as many as ten LTTE cadres undertook training of SA-7 in an undisclosed location in Uttar Pradesh. This group was said to be led by a Pulendran, who later committed suicide at the Palaly base in 1987. When the IPKF landed in Sri Lanka as per the Indo-Lanka agreement there are two accounts of SAMs being used against IPKF gunships. Neither was successful. This is in addition to a captured SA-7 from the ceiling of a school teacher by the IPKF.

Since the 1980s the LTTE SAM threat rose to its height commencing Eelam war III, when within the span of two days it downed two HS748 Avro transports in April 1995. During Eelam war III the Tamil Tigers managed to down 9 SLAF aircraft, 5 of which were MI24 gunships. To bring down these aircrafts the Tigers used a mixture of SA-7, SA-14 and FIM 92A Stinger variants. In addition to these successful hits, the Tamil Tigers have also fired at least 5 more stingers and a SA-14 at Kfir (2x), AN-32 (1x) and MIG27 floggers (3x) without success between 1998-2001. To date according to available information the LTTE have used SA-7, HN-5, SA-14 and FIM92A for its operations against the SLAF.

The SA-7 MANPADs were acquired through the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) in 1994. The Tamil Tigers using its network of vessels aided the ISI run Pakistani terror organisation Harkat-ul-Mujahideen to ship at least two shiploads of arms to the Philipino terror group Moro Islamic Liberation Front. In return the ISI provided the LTTE the much needed SA-7 in addition to AA guns and ammunition as the shipping fee. In 1998 the LTTE acquired a second batch of SA-7 and its Chinese equivalents HN-5 from blackmarket sales in Cambodia. The source of the SA-14s was a Belgian blackmarket arms dealer operating from Bulgaria who diverted a transfer from North Korea to Vietnam and records indicate the transfer taking place in 1998. The FIM92A Stingers were obtained from a Kurdish Guerilla (Kurdistan Workers' party PKK) source in Germany in 1997. These were originally meant for Iraqi forces led by the then President Saddam Hussein courtesy of CIA.
Looks like the SLAF lost quite a few gunships. Not sure how credible that source is.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3972
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby deejay » 26 Sep 2014 06:48

^^^ tsarkar ji, IAF has had two different class of fighters - Ground Attack and Air Superiority. Bombers have been dispensed with and focus has shifted to multirole. We have practiced for both roles and are equally adept at both. Infact, at least a decade ago, the Air Superiority or the Ground Attack streams were different with very few pilots crossing over.

Kargil Ops - Wasn't the role limited because crossing the LOC/ LAC/ AGPL was the big issue. Infact initially, something like 05 kms close to border etc was being quoted.

How bad is the MANPAD threat to helicopters - We were lucky in SL. Not so in Kargil. The Mi-17 went down to MANPADs. I have personally done a few exercises in MANPAD threat environment simulations. Not so good for the choppers. But then it is a battlefield threat and if one does not want to face threats, one can sit in a drawing room. The Mi 25s / 35s did not do so well in Afghanistan against MANPADs.

The idea is to be able to use all weapons and platforms to their maximum potential using their full envelop. For every weapon their will be countermeasures and counter weapons. By limiting usage, we limit our own options.

On how the IAF should use its weapons - Somehow I feel that both the IA and IN need to appreciate better what flying machines can deliver. And yes, no one can deliver CAS in a quicker response time than fighters.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 26 Sep 2014 08:06

To gauge the effectiveness of MANPADS one only has to look at the Ukrainian conflict, where most of the regimes ground attach fighters and helicopters have been shot down.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 26 Sep 2014 15:51

@Ramana, will surely put my thoughts together, though such long posts are extremely time consuming.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Sep 2014 20:52

TSarakar, unfortunately some of the statements you have made don't really apply to the IAF as they are over simplifications. Will reply to your post in the relevant thread as and when I get time.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Sep 2014 20:54

Meanwhile -amazing to see a Bedi article without gratuitous swipes against anything Indian. The poor guy must have gashed his teeth as he wrote this.

http://www.janes.com/article/43164/indi ... nt-venture

Instead of waiting for Maitri, under negotiation since 2007, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Army have decided on the locally developed Akash system, official sources said.

Military officials told IHS Jane's that given the emphasis the new BJP government places on materiel self-sufficiency, the SR-SAM programme, like several other defence projects, will focus on locally designed rather than imported technology and systems.

They said each Akash missile costs around INR30 million (USD491,0000) - less than half the cost of a similar missile imported from the United States or Europe or even co-developed with foreign assistance.

As a result, over the past few months the Indian Army and IAF have concluded a series of validation trials of the truck-mounted, ramjet-propelled Akash ahead of deploying it along the disputed northeastern border with China.

The IAF has placed orders for eight Akash squadrons - with plans for more than double this number - while the Indian Army plans on initially inducting four regiments.

Akash will replace the Soviet-era Strela-10M (SA-13 'Gopher'), Kvadrat (SA-6 'Gainful'), and OSA-AKM (SA-8b 'Gecko' Mod 1) systems in service with the Indian Army and IAF respectively for over four decades.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Sep 2014 20:57

Funny how quickly the winds of change blow. Now for an Akash Mk2 as well.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13871
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby pankajs » 26 Sep 2014 21:20

/OT

Defense procurement cut was primary family income per someone. So it made sense for them to make India the biggest defense importer. That way the cut was from foreign into foreign account out of the reach of Indian law.

The Indian scam cut was for the party, the allies and the C-system. That way most corrupt folks in position of influence and power had a stake in perpetuating the C-system and the family.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sagar G » 26 Sep 2014 23:16

Karan M wrote:Funny how quickly the winds of change blow. Now for an Akash Mk2 as well.


Still a long way from "urgent requirement, buy or else we are doomed" kind of fear mongering that still goes on. Has the IAF/IA given in writing that they won't have any future need of QR-SAM's ??? Javelin is still trolling around as well.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Prem Kumar » 27 Sep 2014 02:34

What does the report mean by "IA has plans to induct Akash". Havent the IA orders already been placed?

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Vipul » 27 Sep 2014 04:14

Modi govt clears long-pending case for Israeli Barak missiles for warships.

India will finally be able to strengthen the eroding defensive shield around its 14 frontline warships, with the Modi government clearing the long-delayed "critical" acquisition of 262 missiles to arm the Israeli Barak-I anti-missile defence (AMD) systems fitted on board them.

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) chaired by PM Narendra Modi on Wednesday evening gave the final nod to the Rs 880 crore acquisition of Barak-I missiles, which has been hanging fire for the last six years despite successive Navy chiefs sounding the red alert over this "critical operational deficiency", said sources.

The Barak AMD systems, installed on aircraft carrier INS Viraat, guided-missile destroyers like INS Mysore and Shivalik-class stealth frigates, are designed to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles at a range of 9-km. India had ordered the first Barak-I system for INS Viraat in the late 1990s to counter Pakistan's acquisition of sea-skimming Exocet and Harpoon missiles.

DRDO's failure to develop the indigenous Trishul AMD system paved the way for further orders after the 1999 Kargil conflict, with a Rs 1,160 crore Barak contract being inked in October 2000 by the then Vajpayee-led NDA-1 government to arm the 14 warships.

But after the UPA regime came to power, the CBI in 2006 named former defence minister George Fernandes, his party associates Jaya Jaitly and R K Jain, alleged arms dealer Suresh Nanda and former Navy chief Admiral Sushil Kumar, apart from armament firms Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael, in the infamous Barak kickbacks case.

This effectively derailed the Navy's case for fresh procurement of missiles to replenish its depleting stocks, even though the UPA regime did not blacklist IAI and Rafael on the ground that it would prove "counter-productive".

Though the CBI late last year closed its case due to lack of evidence, the UPA-2 regime had refrained from taking the fresh procurement case to the CCS for the final nod. The Navy, in fact, had even curtailed its practice firings of the Barak missiles due to their paucity in recent years.

Incidentally, the next-generation AMD systems with 70-km interception range are being built in a joint DRDO-IAI project, though the name 'Barak' has been dropped due to the stigma attached with it. The long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) system to arm warships is worth Rs 2,606 crore, while a medium-range SAM system for IAF is pegged at Rs 10,076 crore.

Hit by huge delays, both the systems will be ready only by December 2015 now. Consequently, India's new aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya and latest indigenous destroyer INS Kolkata are currently operating without these missile defence systems.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Hobbes » 27 Sep 2014 06:40

^^^^
Interesting to note that Rajat Pandit has refrained from his usual pastime of trolling the DRDO for the delay in the SR-SAM. Probably because of the Israeli involvement; one does not want to upset a principal paymaster, after all.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 27 Sep 2014 06:58

As per Saurav Jha, the X-Band seeker being developed at RCI is for an anti shipping version of Nirbhay.

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 - June'14

Postby negi » 27 Sep 2014 12:13

tsarkar wrote:
While I covered the lack of effectiveness of fighters, I forgot to respond why helicopters are effective.

Agility, not speed, is the key to surviving MANPADS. MANPADS have small control surfaces, and cannot turn effectively as well as a conventional missile. A helicopter is the epitome of agility, and on detection can rapidly manoeuver while deploying countermeasures. A fighter flying low & slow like Ajay's MiG21 flies linearly, and cannot gain sufficient momentum well in time to outfly the MANPADS. Ajay's loss clearly indicated the ineffectiveness of fast jets in CAS.

In 1971, Denzil Keelor too lost his MiG21 in the same way http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... Chamb.html

However, not one Mi25/35 was lost in Sri Lanka.

Too many variables to make that conclusion imho. An AC be it a jet or chopper flying at close to 20,000 ft above sea level and engaging enemy armed with stingers in sangars surrounded by peaks will not have the space for maneuvering freely moreover with mofos at the helm who tied the IAF's hands by instructing them not to cross the LOC meant that enemy could predict the ingress and egress of an incoming jet/chopper with much more authority this is different from a chopper deployed in SL flying at most couple of thousand feet above sea level and engaging the enemy on ground. Moreover Paki stinger operators were their Army regulars as against the LTTE in SL, a MANPAD takes a lot of skill to operate if you use them to engage targets at extreme range probability of kill reduces significantly.

We lost 21, 27 and a Mi 17 in Kargil but then M2k was very successful for it had the right tools and technology on it's side so it engaged targets from a longer stand off range, at close ranges and when being engaged with a LOS weapon like a MANPAD it is completely upto pilot's skill and his luck.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 27 Sep 2014 14:40

Thakur_B wrote:As per Saurav Jha, the X-Band seeker being developed at RCI is for an anti shipping version of Nirbhay.


It will probably be a Brahmos type multi variant seeker, both for land targets a la SCAN on Brahmos and naval targets.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 27 Sep 2014 22:13

Barak 8 Test Firing


What exactly is this "TVC Drop" at 0:22?

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby uddu » 27 Sep 2014 22:52

thrust vectoring control. Seems in the initial stage it's the one that turns the missile from vertical position towards the target.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JaiS » 27 Sep 2014 23:03

abhik wrote:What exactly is this "TVC Drop" at 0:22?


From: http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.forecastinternational.com/ContentPages/570689811.pdf


Launcher Mode. The missile on the Barak 1 is
vertically launched. The system uses thrust vector
controls (TVC) that can be jettisoned once the missile
has pitched over and is on line to its target.
The missile
then accelerates to maximum speed. The missile is able
to attack aircraft and other missiles as a defensive
weapon, and may be issued offensively to attack ships
or specific targets on shore.



The same is visible in the video as well.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 30 Sep 2014 21:20

It appears that DRDL has called in a tender for supply of raw materials for a 350 mm dia Liquid Fueled Ram Jet missile combustor. That is about the same dia as that of Akash missile.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/viewTender.jsp?paramMicro=7057

Either Akash-2 is liquid fueled, or we have a new class of raakit-mijjile on our hands.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 30 Sep 2014 22:58

Both are possible. Actually they did try to modify the engine of Akash from solid fueled to liquid fueled for longer range and finer control. But the last I heard about this was from the 2005 time frame.

Most probably, it is for the long range supersonic cruise missile that DRDO is coming up with. They have tested a 178mm combustor with two air intakes. They also developed new fuels for the same with comparable efficiency of a more expensive fuel but with better handling and storage qualities. They recently published the results for using the fuels at simulated Mach 2 (at sea level) conditions. Now, they may be scaling up to 350mm.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12024
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Sep 2014 23:08

tsarkar wrote:
While I covered the lack of effectiveness of fighters, I forgot to respond why helicopters are effective.

Agility, not speed, is the key to surviving MANPADS. MANPADS have small control surfaces, and cannot turn effectively as well as a conventional missile. A helicopter is the epitome of agility, and on detection can rapidly manoeuver while deploying countermeasures. A fighter flying low & slow like Ajay's MiG21 flies linearly, and cannot gain sufficient momentum well in time to outfly the MANPADS. Ajay's loss clearly indicated the ineffectiveness of fast jets in CAS.

In 1971, Denzil Keelor too lost his MiG21 in the same way http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... Chamb.html

However, not one Mi25/35 was lost in Sri Lanka.


Ajay Ahuja was not on a Bombing run, the reason why his was the only fighter hit by a Paki Manpad was he was abnormally flying low and slow looking to see where Fl. LT Nachiketa had bailed out. That was the only time out of the numerous Manpad fired did it hit a fighter, the others being a Canberra and Mi-17. Otherwise the fighters were too fast during normal ops to be hit by Manpads.

Quite frankly Me thinks this whole Anza business was to get Malayasia and others to buy the excess inventory of stingers Pakis had after Afgan war, for them to make a quick buck. The Americans coninved to make sure the batteries etc. were updated. Thats why only Stingers were captured by the Indian Army at the end of Kargil operations. The anza's were rebadged versions of 80's gen Stingers.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 01 Oct 2014 06:34

indranilroy wrote:Both are possible. Actually they did try to modify the engine of Akash from solid fueled to liquid fueled for longer range and finer control. But the last I heard about this was from the 2005 time frame.

Most probably, it is for the long range supersonic cruise missile that DRDO is coming up with. They have tested a 178mm combustor with two air intakes. They also developed new fuels for the same with comparable efficiency of a more expensive fuel but with better handling and storage qualities. They recently published the results for using the fuels at simulated Mach 2 (at sea level) conditions. Now, they may be scaling up to 350mm.


You are right. LFRJ could also be for the supersonic LRCM project, although I always imagined LRCM to be on the larger side, almost (Brahmos-ish), but it may very well turn out to be ASMP-ish.

I suppose if they are calling for raw materials to make prototypes, we could very well hear about it in an year or two.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 01 Oct 2014 06:53

Karan M wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:As per Saurav Jha, the X-Band seeker being developed at RCI is for an anti shipping version of Nirbhay.


It will probably be a Brahmos type multi variant seeker, both for land targets a la SCAN on Brahmos and naval targets.


I believe the current seeker already has that capability.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rH5GjRgJx40/UNYXrS_OEzI/AAAAAAAAC5c/Vko2PChZrcg/s1600/X-band+SAR+seeker.jpg

I'd love to see what capabilities does a dedicated anti shipping variant brings to the party.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Shrinivasan » 01 Oct 2014 11:04

Desh has crossed the proverbial rubicon in terms of missile development, hence multiple missiles and their variants are rolling out. Also a missile developed for one task is getting repurposed for another which would help in bringing about economy of scale for the underlying components (and hence a larger order for the SMEs supplying those). this is also seen in UAVs... hope this maturity spreads to Small arms, Armor and Arty too.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2014 02:39

Thakur B, thats not the current seeker but the in development one for the Nirbhay/indigenized Brahmos/etc.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 02 Oct 2014 12:24

TBRL has called out for components for a multiple explosive formed penetrator (MEFP) warhead which seems about the right size to fit inside Nirbhay. A similar concept was used by lockheed martin in their loitering air missile demonstration where they used MEFP warhead to take out a large number of lightly armoured mobile targets.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19511
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 03 Oct 2014 01:49

Well Nirbay warheads should be handled by ARDE and HEMRL. Does TBRL mention it's for tests or a program? In recent years TBRL has started moving into munitions apps well.. TBRL and some other labs had issues with retaining talent. Seems like the decision has been made to allow labs to work on adjacencies.. So ADE is handling Nirbhay as versus the usual missile cluster of RCI, DRDL, ASL... plus LGBs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2014 05:48

Thakur_B wrote:TBRL has called out for components for a multiple explosive formed penetrator (MEFP) warhead which seems about the right size to fit inside Nirbhay. A similar concept was used by lockheed martin in their loitering air missile demonstration where they used MEFP warhead to take out a large number of lightly armoured mobile targets.


Can you provide details?

Thanks,
ramana

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Oct 2014 06:07

When is Nirbhay getting tested? Monsoon season is almost over.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 03 Oct 2014 06:42

ramana wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:TBRL has called out for components for a multiple explosive formed penetrator (MEFP) warhead which seems about the right size to fit inside Nirbhay. A similar concept was used by lockheed martin in their loitering air missile demonstration where they used MEFP warhead to take out a large number of lightly armoured mobile targets.


Can you provide details?

Thanks,
ramana


Here you go.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/viewTender.jsp?paramMicro=7112

Karan M wrote:Well Nirbay warheads should be handled by ARDE and HEMRL. Does TBRL mention it's for tests or a program? In recent years TBRL has started moving into munitions apps well. TBRL and some other labs had issues with retaining talent. Seems like the decision has been made to allow labs to work on adjacencies.. So ADE is handling Nirbhay as versus the usual missile cluster of RCI, DRDL, ASL... plus LGBs.


It doesn't specifically mention any program however either the BMD missile project or a surface to surfcae/air to surface project are good enough candidates for an MEFP warhead, but our BMDs use directional warheads. TBRL is also working on deep earth penetrators and EMP bomb projects as well, in conjunction with ARDE.
Last edited by Thakur_B on 03 Oct 2014 09:05, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests