Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

member_28442 · Post by **member_28442** » 31 Oct 2014 08:47

Instead, Rosoboronexport wrote to the Indian evaluators saying that they did not feel it necessary to conduct another demonstration of their system.

not connected, but this portion reminds me of the chinese suppliers i deal with lol

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 Oct 2014 08:54

^^from a cost pov it's not a bad call by them. They politely decline to spend more on what they know is a losing proposition I suppose.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 31 Oct 2014 08:56

Russia has decided India should fight in winter only !!!

This attitude is the result of too much dependency on a single supplier. it is good that we are moving ahead with other suppliers too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2014 11:17

the mistral looks fairly basic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw5isfEaQ0s
seems to use the exposed missile seeker itself as the sensor

rbs70ng has a huge optical sight additionally it seems but more bulky needs a 3 man vs 2 man team
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FygYF3S4xA

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 31 Oct 2014 12:25

Thakur_B wrote:Igla-S is in rough waters for triservice VSHORADS procurement.
http://www.stratpost.com/russian-no-sho ... rad-trials

Several rounds of trials have been carried out, so far. In May 2012, trials were held at the Mahajan range, in which the Russians managed to score only a single hit out of four. Again during sea trials, the Russian system managed only a single hit out of two. Rosoboronexport was allowed to repeat the Mahajan trials in winter of 2012, in which it managed all four hits. But its sight failed during high altitude trials, following which they were asked to modify their sight’s lens, receiver metrics and software.

Having persisted in the competition, they were invited to try again this summer at the Mahajan range.

Indian evaluators asked them to demonstrate firing of their system in high temperatures at Mahajan by August 15 this year, to demonstrate the functionality of the modified sight. As it turned out, everybody except the Russians showed up.

Instead, Rosoboronexport wrote to the Indian evaluators saying that they did not feel it necessary to conduct another demonstration of their system.

Rosoboronexport "We do not feel it is necessary to conduct another demonstration. We will send Ms Natasaha and Mr Suitcase for further discussions. ALL these are proven systems"

bharats · Post by **bharats** » 31 Oct 2014 13:32

No flight of fancy
by T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
Link: http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/no-f ... 541263.ece

The test flight of India’s subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay, which can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads and has a range of 1,000 km, goes exactly as scripted.

IT was a flight that far exceeded the expectations of the missile and aeronautical engineers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on October 17. It was only the second flight of Nirbhay, India’s subsonic cruise missile, which takes off vertically like a missile, jettisons its booster engine and then starts flying horizontally like an aircraft at a subsonic speed of 0.7 Mach.

However, the smooth flight of Nirbhay on that day for more than an hour, covering a range of 1,010 km, demonstrated not only the DRDO’s ability to blend missile and aeronautical technologies into a single contraption but also filled a vital gap in India’s arsenal. While India’s supersonic cruise missile BrahMos has a range of just 290 km, and can carry only a conventional warhead, Nirbhay is a long-range missile that can attack targets 1,000 km away. Besides, it can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads. In addition, it is a “treetop” missile: it can fly at a height of just five metres, undetected by radars. It is a “loitering missile” as well: it can hover above an area for several minutes, pick out a target and attack it with precision. In several DRDO engineers’ reckoning, Nirbhay is the base on which more powerful subsonic cruise missiles with longer ranges can be developed.

The sky was clear at 10-05 a.m. at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) near Balasore, Odisha, when Nirbhay lifted off from a mobile launcher, a TATRA truck. This is the sequence of its test launch: Nirbhay’s booster engine revved up; it rose vertically to a height of 800 metres; a mechanism in the missile tilted it horizontally; the booster engine fell away; the turbo-jet engine, akin to an aircraft’s, ignited; and with its wings spread out Nirbhay started cruising like an aircraft at an altitude of five km. It was carrying a 300-kg dummy warhead. It flew for more than an hour and 10 minutes, traversing more than 1,010 km against the targeted 800 km. It progressed from one waypoint to another, covering 16 waypoints on its flight path. At the end of 1,000 km of flight, with its aviation turbine fuel exhausted, Nirbhay plunged into the Bay of Bengal. All along, a Jaguar fighter-aircraft of the Indian Air Force tailed it, videographing its flight.

Avinash Chander, Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Director-General, DRDO, called Nirbhay “a new addition to our weaponry because it can penetrate [areas] where aircraft cannot reach”. Since it can fly at heights varying from five metres to 5 km, “it can go deep into the enemy territory, undetected by radars. It is unstoppable,” said Chander, a missile technologist himself. Nirbhay can attack targets with a precision of one to two metres. In other words, its circular error probability is one to two metres. On October 17, “the missile maintained an accuracy better than 10 metres throughout its path,” said Chander. It performed steep dives too. It was carrying a dummy warhead, “simulating the final warhead”.

In Chander’s estimate, Nirbhay performed better than expected. While DRDO engineers expected it to fly around 800 km, it covered 1,010 km. The DRDO is currently working on its variants, which can be launched from land, ships and submarines so that they can be used by the Army and the Navy. “It was more than a textbook flight,” said K. Tamilmani, Director General (Aeronautical Systems), DRDO. “This is the base for cruise missile technology which can be adapted for a higher range,” he said. DRDO can build cruise missiles which can attack targets 1,250 km away, he added. He appreciated the private industry’s contribution to the mission’s success. The eight-metre long, surface-to-surface, long-range cruise missile was designed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Bangalore, a DRDO facility.

Only four other countries have long-range subsonic cruise missiles: the United States, Russia, China and Pakistan. Informed sources said that Pakistan’s Babur cruise missile was not a home-grown missile but largely a gift from China. China is now concentrating more on long-range supersonic cruise missiles, informed sources said.

Nirbhay’s performance on October 17 was remarkable compared with its debut flight on March 12, 2013, that ended in failure. On March 12, 2013, after the missile took off vertically, it took a horizontal turn and flew for about 20 minutes, traversing more than 200 km. Soon after, problems arose in a component in its inertial navigation system. So it deviated from its path and started heading towards the Odisha coast. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha on May 8, 2013, the then Defence Minister A.K. Antony explained what happened after the missile crossed the first waypoint. “Deviation was observed while going to the second way-point. When the deviation exceeded the safety limit, mission abort command was issued from the ground and the destruction mechanism inside the missile was activated.”

The debris fell near Gadaharishpur, Odisha. A Sukhoi-30 aircraft had chased the missile and the Sukhoi pilot said the missile had flown perfectly, as if it was being driven by a pilot till it was destructed, an ADE engineer said later. “We traced the problem to an electronics component in the inertial navigation system and we redesigned the entire electronics system,” explained the young G. Satheesh Reddy, Director, Research Centre, Imarat (RCI), near Hyderabad, a DRDO laboratory.

Thus, the reliability of this primary navigation system was enhanced. Besides, the RCI introduced a redundant navigation system. “To take care of any failure [of the primary navigation system], we put the redundant system,” Satheesh Reddy explained. On D-day, after Nirbhay started flying like an aircraft, “it perfectly touched the 16 waypoints as planned and reached the targeted area, more than 1,000 km away,” said Satheesh Reddy. The missile got within five to six metres of the targeted area in the sea. When asked how Nirbhay flew more than 1,000 km while the targeted range was “800 km plus”, he replied: “We keep some margins when we conduct a test flight. We were confident [that we will achieve 1,000 km], but before the test flight, we were a little conservative.” He added that it was definitely the cheapest missile of its class in the world. It cost less than Rs.10 crore.

P.S. Krishnan, former Director, ADE, was delighted over the success of the test flight. “I feel elated because more than 100 per cent of the mission objectives were met. It feels great to achieve such a big success in the second flight itself of a missile of this class,” he said. “The best part of Nirbhay is that we were able to combine the best of two systems, missile and aeronautical, and make a product,” Krishnan said. What was creditable about the mission was that the DRDO was able to make the missile on its own. “We were able to conceive, design and develop it. It is a totally different situation when we can make our own missiles,” Krishnan said. He also emphasised that Nirbhay can be adapted to be launched from different “sites”, that is, land, ships and submarines.

The RCI’s contribution to the missile were: the primary navigation system called the ring-laser gyro inertial navigation system, the redundant navigation system/ micro-navigation system, the control actuators and battery systems. The Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), Pune, DRDO, specifically designed the mobile launcher. The Advanced Systems Laboratory, DRDO, Hyderabad, contributed the missile’s booster motor.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 31 Oct 2014 13:52

Thakur_B wrote:Igla-S is in rough waters for triservice VSHORADS procurement.
http://www.stratpost.com/russian-no-sho ... rad-trials

Several rounds of trials have been carried out, so far. In May 2012, trials were held at the Mahajan range, in which the Russians managed to score only a single hit out of four. Again during sea trials, the Russian system managed only a single hit out of two. Rosoboronexport was allowed to repeat the Mahajan trials in winter of 2012, in which it managed all four hits. But its sight failed during high altitude trials, following which they were asked to modify their sight’s lens, receiver metrics and software.

Having persisted in the competition, they were invited to try again this summer at the Mahajan range.

Indian evaluators asked them to demonstrate firing of their system in high temperatures at Mahajan by August 15 this year, to demonstrate the functionality of the modified sight. As it turned out, everybody except the Russians showed up.

Instead, Rosoboronexport wrote to the Indian evaluators saying that they did not feel it necessary to conduct another demonstration of their system.

With over 2 decades of experience with domestic missiles being subjected to extremely strenuous test scenarios, DRDO will not let MoD or services push through a new missile system without equivalent testing. This is the day we were waiting for when there's no substitute for domestic technology, skills, experience and products. No wonder DRDO has gone on record that within next decade we'll fulfil all our missile requirements domestically.

Waiting for others areas of military tech to reach such maturity.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 31 Oct 2014 14:35

rohitvats wrote:That idiot Chorgupta writes whatever fancy stuff he can conjure up. 321 launchers and 8,000+ missiles for < 15 battalions between IA/IAF/IN...and I'm including Para infantry as well.

Also, the tripe about IA infantry authorized mix of medium and long range ATGM. Someone tell that idiot that IA infantry operates only Milan/Milan-2T. Unlike US or Pakistan Army even, IA has never operated an ATGM of TOW class. Which is a heavy and long range ATGM.

IIRC, US Marine infantry battalion weapons company has ATGM Platoon with 4xJavelin + 4xTOW launchers. IMO, we have 8 x launchers with 1+5 missiles each. And mountain segment has 2 x launchers and 1+5 missiles each.

And Javelin missile already comes with a cooled seeker. And that is the reason it is an expensive missile. New French ATGM called MMP will also have uncooled IIR and twin modes.

IA does operate two types of ATGMs, currently long range Konkurs (made at BDL under licence) and Milan. This deal for Spike will have a regular IA battllion deploying 2 variants of the Missile (SR-MR). BMP will also get the Spike.

IA does need 80K missiles, it makes no sense to rely entirely on Spike and BDL, they would take more than a decade or more deliver to such huge quantities. Even off the shelf purchase of 8000 Spikemissiles would easily take 4 years. I can see Javelin being acquired as Gupta claims.

Spike-SR: Weight 9Kg, easily man portable: would be ideal for IA/IAF/IN SF & Para infantry units especially in an urban & close quarters setting. Since most of them are usually deployed right into the heart of the enemy lines and often close or right onto the target locations, Spike's
disadvantages of possible failure in harsh conditions reduces dramatically. I think Spike SR comes with a few warhead choices which allows it to be used against a variety of targets. This weapon would be the ideal weapon to replace existing stocks of Carl Gustav (if IA has the same thing in mind, we are looking at around 40K of these being acquired overtime, SMAW which could have been under consideration would not be acquired because Spike SR is better )

Spike-MR: Would be acquired for BMPs I think

Javelin: Would be ideal for Regular IA infantry battallions, there is no other way around it, its uncooled sensor would allow for reliability and regular battllions during combat spend quite some time on the ground, I would think around 40K units for regular Infantry.

As for DRDO ATGM, nothing is certain they actually need to field it, test it. The way IA is when it comes to Nag, we'd be 10 years from now and still no orders.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2014 14:42

cant more of the presumably much cheaper Shipon rockets do the Spike-SR/CG thing? they come in sealed tubes. we already have unknown numbers.
it has 600m range and anti bunker round also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JenkJp8piRQ

also is not BDL in the process of manufacturing some 15000 Milan2T rounds under license?

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 31 Oct 2014 16:23

Septimus,

You are confusing a Platoon level support weapon with an ATGM. The 84mm Carl Gustav M3 is used at a Rifle Platoon level manned by an 2-man team. It is and has been one of the most versatile RL systems in service worldwide. Furthermore, Carl Gustav with its AT rounds outranges the Spike SR. Even moolah wise, an RL will make sense any day versus an ATGM at the ranges being talked about.

The BMP's would most likely mount the Spike LR or the Kornet E as these are its compatriots range-wise versus Konkurs M. They also feature AT, FAE (fuel air) and PBF (anti structure) warheads.

Singha,

Exactly, SF/RR units use Shipon's or RPO-A/B in CI Ops also.

BDL has competed the manufacture of Milan 2T ATGM's. They are waiting for a repeat order which might not come now.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 31 Oct 2014 16:42

Can anyone give a breakdown of the Nirbhay missile as to what is indigenous and what is imported. It's fairly certain that the second stage engine is imported. But what about the casing/tankage for that engine, as well as the fuel and oxidiser combination? Software, avionics, control, stage separation systems etc, it would be nice to know the ratio of Indian to non-Indian made components. Someone, I think it was Karan, gave excellent details about the Indian input into the Brahmos missile a few months ago. It was pleasantly surprising to see how much Indian industry is contributing, particularly when all you've read until then was some general info about 'software and avionics'.

Only if it is the public domain, of course!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Oct 2014 21:29

Singha wrote:cant more of the presumably much cheaper Shipon rockets do the Spike-SR/CG thing? they come in sealed tubes. we already have unknown numbers.
it has 600m range and anti bunker round also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JenkJp8piRQ

also is not BDL in the process of manufacturing some 15000 Milan2T rounds under license?

The question is why wasn't a development program with enough lead time started in earnest to fill the future requirements? And then the "we-needed-these-since-yesterday-onlee" excuse will be brought up when it is already too late.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Oct 2014 23:40

Septimus P. wrote: IA does operate two types of ATGMs, currently long range Konkurs (made at BDL under licence) and Milan. This deal for Spike will have a regular IA battllion deploying 2 variants of the Missile (SR-MR). BMP will also get the Spike.

Chorgupta's comment was especially about Infantry battalions equipped with 2 different types of ATGM with 1.8 km and 4 km range respectively. And that is what I've problem with. I know IA uses different types of ATGM but that is not the point. Point is - Infantry battalions use single type of ATGM. And Spike-MR will replace this ATGM.

As for BMP-2, they use Konkur-M; whether these will be replaced with Spike-LR or Kornet during upgrade is yet to be seen. But for sake of commonality and ease of logistics, I hope Spike-LR version is used.

IA does need 80K missiles, it makes no sense to rely entirely on Spike and BDL, they would take more than a decade or more deliver to such huge quantities. Even off the shelf purchase of 8000 Spikemissiles would easily take 4 years. I can see Javelin being acquired as Gupta claims.

First - 80K missiles is a fine number to quote but means nothing unless you break it down into sub-components. However, the bulk will be utilized between Infantry and Mechanized Infantry (to be fired from the IFV).

As for going for multiple types because our requirement is large - well, that flies in the face of every bit of common sense. Why will Indian Army operate two different types of anti-tank missiles and create a headache for itself? If the issue is with timely production and induction of missiles, then the solution is to invest in increasing the production capacity and not creating additional problems by acquiring multiple types of missiles to do the same task.

Spike-SR: Weight 9Kg, easily man portable: would be ideal for IA/IAF/IN SF & Para infantry units especially in an urban & close quarters setting. Since most of them are usually deployed right into the heart of the enemy lines and often close or right onto the target locations, Spike's disadvantages of possible failure in harsh conditions reduces dramatically. I think Spike SR comes with a few warhead choices which allows it to be used against a variety of targets. This weapon would be the ideal weapon to replace existing stocks of Carl Gustav (if IA has the same thing in mind, we are looking at around 40K of these being acquired overtime, SMAW which could have been under consideration would not be acquired because Spike SR is better )

A country's special forces will be used to undertake high value assignments which give disproportionate returns for the force employed. That is the reason they're equipped with cutting edge weapon-systems. I'd rather equip Special Forces with an expensive missile like JAVELIN to give them the best weapon in the field. As of now, no one expect for the fertile imagination of PSG is making this claim about SPIKE-SR being the missile which India is importing.

BTW - the biggest point against this wild theory of PSG is that IA has ordered 321 launchers and 8,000+ missiles. If that dodo had bothered to look-up the specs of SPIKE-SR, he would have realized that SPIKE-SR DOES NOT come with a CLU.

Have a look at this pic of SPIKE-SR; do you see a CLU here?

So, which launchers or Command Launch Units (CLU) is India importing?

And Carl Gustav is not going anywhere - a Spike missile, even SR version, is cheaper relative to only other missiles. Not RL. A RL has many more roles to play than what a missile can and should be used for.

Spike-MR: Would be acquired for BMPs I think

Not MR (2,500 meter) but LR (4,000 meter) - Missiles on IFV are longer ranged than what are used by Infantry.

But we don't know whether Spike missile will be used on BMP-2. Unless, IA has already decided that BMP-2 upgrade will happen with Spike-MR, we'll have to stick with either Konkur-M or Kornet missiles.

Javelin: Would be ideal for Regular IA infantry battalions, there is no other way around it, its uncooled sensor would allow for reliability and regular battalions during combat spend quite some time on the ground, I would think around 40K units for regular Infantry.

JAVELIN is a very expensive missile and frankly, IA will have to literally break the bank to acquire the numbers it is looking at. From top of my head, I remember IA having requirement for ~2,000 launchers and ~40,000 missiles for the infantry ATGM requirement.

JAVELIN launcher or CLU costs $145,000 while missile is about $80,000. That is almost $3.5 billion!

Spike-MR and Spike-LR should fill all the roles in Indian Army between line infantry and mechanized infantry.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 31 Oct 2014 23:48

bharats wrote:No flight of fancy
by T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
Link: http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/no-f ... 541263.ece
.

The sky was clear at 10-05 a.m. at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) near Balasore, Odisha, when Nirbhay lifted off from a mobile launcher, a TATRA truck. This is the sequence of its test launch: Nirbhay’s booster engine revved up; it rose vertically to a height of 800 metres; a mechanism in the missile tilted it horizontally; the booster engine fell away; the turbo-jet engine, akin to an aircraft’s, ignited; and with its wings spread out Nirbhay started cruising like an aircraft at an altitude of five km. It was carrying a 300-kg dummy warhead. It flew for more than an hour and 10 minutes, traversing more than 1,010 km against the targeted 800 km. It progressed from one waypoint to another, covering 16 waypoints on its flight path. At the end of 1,000 km of flight, with its aviation turbine fuel exhausted, Nirbhay plunged into the Bay of Bengal. All along, a Jaguar fighter-aircraft of the Indian Air Force tailed it, videographing its flight.

.

Pre-test report as well as Post-test report - in both cases I don't know why even TSSubramanian repeats this mistake..

it is NOT a turbo-jet, it is a turbo-fan engine in Nirbhay !!!

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 31 Oct 2014 23:59

Varoon Shekhar wrote:Can anyone give a breakdown of the Nirbhay missile as to what is indigenous and what is imported. It's fairly certain that the second stage engine is imported. But what about the casing/tankage for that engine, as well as the fuel and oxidiser combination? Software, avionics, control, stage separation systems etc, it would be nice to know the ratio of Indian to non-Indian made components. Someone, I think it was Karan, gave excellent details about the Indian input into the Brahmos missile a few months ago. It was pleasantly surprising to see how much Indian industry is contributing, particularly when all you've read until then was some general info about 'software and avionics'.

Only if it is the public domain, of course!

By second stage engine, do you mean the turbofan? That's developed by ETBRDC. Its indigenous.
Link

The MoD-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd’s (HAL) Bengaluru-based Engine Test Bed Research & Development Centre (ETBRDC) has developed a turbofan for powering all members of the Nirbhay cruise missile family. A hybrid inertial navigation system using a ring-laser gyro (RINS) coupled with a GPS receiver and a digital radar altimeter (all developed by the DRDO’s Research centre Imarat, or RCI, and integrated jointly by the Advanced Systems Laboratory, or ASL, and the Aeronautical Development Establishment, or ADE) will provide a CEP of 20 metres. All on-board avionics, inclusive of the ones mentioned above, plus the mission computer and missile interface unit, have been developed as spinoffs from the BrahMos-1 supersonic multi-role cruise missile’s R & D cycle, which lasted between 1998 and 2005.

The hybrid inertial navigation system will ensure autonomous navigation via at least 15 waypoints, while for terminal guidance, use will be made of a noise-immune guidance system that will employ an X-band monopulse SAR radar similar to the one now being developed for both the BrahMos-1’s Blocks-2/3 and the Prahaar NLOS-BSM. The conventionally-armed ALCM variant of Nirbhay will thus be procured in large numbers (exceeding 700) by both the IAF and the IN.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 01 Nov 2014 00:09

The best part of Nirbhay is that we were able to combine the best of two systems, missile and aeronautical, and make a product

Just adding a point here. The aeronautical scientists are part of the solution too here, which makes a very strong case of funding more aeronautical projects. Now only if Nirbhay has a recovery mechanism, for reuse post maintenance/refuel; it would be a very good option at borders during war!

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Nov 2014 00:19

^
For re-usability you have armed drones.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Nov 2014 00:22

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:By second stage engine, do you mean the turbofan? That's developed by ETBRDC. Its indigenous.
Link

Chorgupta is not reliable. No other mainstream media and none of the reliable bloggers have confirmed an indigenous engine in the latest test. Last it was reported to be using an imported engine. An engine is under development IIRC.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Nov 2014 00:48

HAL conducts critical Ground Vibration Test on modified Sukhoi with BrahMos missile - News Oneindia

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Nov 2014 01:05

Guys looks like that MKI has a jammer on its wingtip.

Looks like we did get the SAP-518 pods after all.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Nov 2014 01:09

Ha ha, confirmation!!

Tests on nine configurations of the aircraft The tests were carried out for nine configurations, including clean configuration, with bombs (2 tons) at station 1 & 2 (centerline of the aircraft), with BrahMos missile at the newly-developed station 13, R-27 missiles at station 3-6, R-73 missiles at station 7-10 and SAP518 pod (ECM jamming pod) at station 11-12. "The preliminary results show good agreement between natural frequencies of clean aircraft and design values. These are ongoing tests and are complex in nature. Multiple agencies are involved in the project and we are confident of achieving the tasks within the set targets," Tyagi said. The National Aerospace Laboratories too recently conducted extensive wind tunnel experiments (separation tests) to monitor the health of the aircraft, after BrahMos missile is released.

Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/india/hal-condu ... 50389.html

And:

Repair and overhaul stores facility open HAL on Friday inaugurated the Su-30 MKI repair and overhaul (ROH) project stores facility at the Nashik Division. HAL has set up a facility for ROH of 15 aircraft per annum at the division. "HAL is one of the few organisations in the world to have set-up ROH facilities for Su-30. This will provide full maintenance support and enhance the serviceability of Su-30MKI fleet through-out its life-cycle. We are also making efforts to indigenise parts required for this aircraft and make the country self-reliant in this segment," Tyagi said. The facility was inaugurated by Secretary Defence Production G Mohan Kumar, who wanted HAL to focus on timely delivery, quality, customer satisfaction and cost reduction.

Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/india/hal-condu ... 50389.html

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Nov 2014 01:23

I didnt expect it to be carried that far on the wing. I thought it would be under the belly. Can the mki carry two?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 01 Nov 2014 02:20

The jammer is carried on 2 stations 11 & 12.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Nov 2014 03:30

Karan M wrote:Ha ha, confirmation!!

Oct 16, 2014 :: SAP-518

The SAP-518 is an advanced jamming pod intended for heavy strike fighters such as Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30MK, and Su-32/34 and Indian Air Force Su-30MKI. Its primary mission is to jam advanced air defenses during ground attack missions imitating electronic signatures of various aircraft while generating false targets within enemy sensors. The SAP-518 covers NATO surface-to-air and air-to-air threats in the G-J bands and is deployed in two underwing or wingtip pods. Installed on a single aircraft along with the SAP-14 jamming pod is considered similar to the United States ALQ-99 jamming system installed on the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The electronic warfare system has been developed and manufactured by the Kaluzhsky Scientific Research Radio-Technical Institute (KNIRTI). Its existence was revealed at the MAKS 2009 airshow.

An Su-34 Fullback demonstrator photographed at Kubinka in September, 2009, equipped with new wingtip mounted KNIRTI SAP-518 self-protection ECM pods, and a large centreline KNIRTI SAP-14 “Escort Jammer” support jamming pod.

Interesting cutout:

The KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S H/I band ECM pods are paired on the aircraft wingtips.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2014 06:17

Its carrying a brahmos almost near wingtip eek.

Btw a typical bmp only carries 6 rounds of konkurs I think. And kornet is bigger.
All talk of warhead types is moot until they ditch the infantry carriage role in some anti tank and fire support units and
Move to raider config with 10,000 rds of cannon ammo and 16 atgms.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Nov 2014 07:43

Hain ji, where you see a wingtip brahmos? my old eyes suggest brahmos is underbelly and what looks like brmos near wingtip is actually another bird with nosecone down.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Nov 2014 07:50

Karan M wrote:Ha ha, confirmation!!

Tests on nine configurations of the aircraft The tests were carried out for nine configurations, including clean configuration, with bombs (2 tons) at station 1 & 2 (centerline of the aircraft), with BrahMos missile at the newly-developed station 13, R-27 missiles at station 3-6, R-73 missiles at station 7-10 and SAP518 pod (ECM jamming pod) at station 11-12. "The preliminary results show good agreement between natural frequencies of clean aircraft and design values. These are ongoing tests and are complex in nature. Multiple agencies are involved in the project and we are confident of achieving the tasks within the set targets," Tyagi said. The National Aerospace Laboratories too recently conducted extensive wind tunnel experiments (separation tests) to monitor the health of the aircraft, after BrahMos missile is released.

Station 13 is the next logical number for the new station. It does not have to be furthest away from the centerline. Infact it could be very much around the central frame of the plane. Lets see where this 13 is, when they show it slung.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2014 14:03

by the beard of the holy camel, your are right...thats another bird in the back. there is a huge missile in the cleavage between the two air intakes...the most logical place.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 01 Nov 2014 15:08

So super Su 30 MKI are on their way!!, it is saying to me that,

1. Are we going to have dedicated sets of Super su 30 mki ? , a. with electronic jamming function, b. for Bombing function, c. Whatever other 9 configurations are going to be said later.

2. Can this be termed as Su-30MKI mid life upgrade? It makes lot of sense to have multiple choices on this platform, otherwise going Super su 30 mode only for sake of Brahmos integration would be just a hole in our pocket, will add to profit for vodaka makers.

last post I was on phone when I saw the tweet of anantakrishnan.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Nov 2014 18:05

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 1h 1 hour ago

Okay it seems that the Javelin co-development is not off the table yet. There are backers for it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2014 19:15

exactly what further co-development does javelin need? it is already F&F top attack.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Nov 2014 19:35

Do not too much, but, here are a few thoughts + google results:

* Miniaturization of anything and everything?
* Leading to a much smaller and therefore a far more portable set (Saab? next generation light antitank weapon (NLAW))
* As in a single user? (Saab?)

* Over flight (as opposed to top attack) (OTA), where the projectile flies over a target and fires down at the target
* predicted line of sight (PLOS)

* Network centric?

* If you can have GPS in a art shell, why not in a tank shell? Toss it up, provide a GPS, let it ID a moving target and engage.

There is a ton of work to be done. Much work is already in progress.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Nov 2014 20:11

Singha wrote:exactly what further co-development does javelin need? it is already F&F top attack.

Uncooled sensor with equivalent or better field performance.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Nov 2014 01:02

On the Su-34 pictured above, the deep centerline pylon carrying the KNIRTI SAP-518 pod ensures that it is clear of the area between the engines instead of being held close to the belly like we are planning with Brahmos. Maybe this is to provide better "clearance" from electronic interference and maybe not. Since we are moving ahead with the current Brahmos placement, one assumes that Su-30mki has been flight tested with a dummy Brahmos to make sure it is aerodynamically doable and safe in that position. Never read about it though.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Nov 2014 02:35

Victor wrote:On the Su-34 pictured above, the deep centerline pylon carrying the KNIRTI SAP-518 pod ensures that it is clear of the area between the engines instead of being held close to the belly like we are planning with Brahmos. Maybe this is to provide better "clearance" from electronic interference and maybe not. Since we are moving ahead with the current Brahmos placement, one assumes that Su-30mki has been flight tested with a dummy Brahmos to make sure it is aerodynamically doable and safe in that position. Never read about it though.

What makes you think that dummy carriage trials were done prior to the ground vibration tests?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Nov 2014 05:11

Victor wrote:On the Su-34 pictured above, the deep centerline pylon carrying the KNIRTI SAP-518 pod ensures that it is clear of the area between the engines instead of being held close to the belly like we are planning with Brahmos. Maybe this is to provide better "clearance" from electronic interference and maybe not. Since we are moving ahead with the current Brahmos placement, one assumes that Su-30mki has been flight tested with a dummy Brahmos to make sure it is aerodynamically doable and safe in that position. Never read about it though.

One Assumes wrong. Ground vibration tests precede undercarriage trials.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Nov 2014 05:16

Thakur_B wrote:http://i.imgur.com/KcAa7XF.jpg

HAL conducts critical Ground Vibration Test on modified Sukhoi with BrahMos missile - News Oneindia

So there is SAP518 on the Su above, and the white missile (brahmos) seems to fit snugly and almost up to the front landing gear. It would be great to see a pic or get a confirmation if we have "KNIRTI SAP-14" in inventory as well. No wonder the growlers didn't make the cut.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Nov 2014 10:24

luckily the front landing gear of the sukhoi retracts up toward the front I think.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Nov 2014 11:09

Victor wrote:On the Su-34 pictured above, the deep centerline pylon carrying the KNIRTI SAP-518 pod ensures that it is clear of the area between the engines instead of being held close to the belly like we are planning with Brahmos. Maybe this is to provide better "clearance" from electronic interference and maybe not. Since we are moving ahead with the current Brahmos placement, one assumes that Su-30mki has been flight tested with a dummy Brahmos to make sure it is aerodynamically doable and safe in that position. Never read about it though.

If you would have noticed the Fulcrum which is a very similar design can carry a pretty bulky fuel tank on the center line between the engine bays (in fact in the old design fulcrum could not use it's guns when carrying that center line fuel tank) , so the MKI too should be able to carry a Brahmos in similar config. the separation and firing trials will be additional tests.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Nov 2014 20:32

How many liters is that drop tank. Looks pretty snug in there.