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.
srin
BRFite
Posts: 1913
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby srin » 17 Jun 2015 22:20

tushar_m wrote:According to some old report the rocket motors for Barak 8 was made by DRDO not IAI. So this tech is already with us.

The main reason for Barak 8 is the Seeker tech which we still lag in.

Let me see if i can get that old news


Astra also uses dual pulse motor. There is the tech part - do we get the seeker technology but I'm more concerned about the money - this is easily worth billions.

So, if for instance, Singapore buys Barak-8 for say USD 100M, how much will DRDO get and how much will IAI get ? With a joint venture company, there is a defined %age. Here I don't see the JV company.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jun 2015 23:58

DRDO dual pulse motor http://i.imgur.com/02uhMFs.jpg and here http://i.imgur.com/alZru.jpg

Astra Mk2 is planned to have a dual pulse motor, not Mk1.

Workshare for LR-SAM http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pRWKN98mKrE/T ... 00/111.jpg

The slide is old. The pneumatic actuator did not work out and they reverted back to electromechanical

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48568.html
So there were issues with respect to radar development, issues with respect to the actuation system as well which was initially supposed to be pneumatic but then had to be changed to electromechanical. Then there was the two pulse motor which was being done for the first time and that got into certain combustion stability problems. But the good news is that all those problems have now been overcome. We launched a massive program on the rocket motor and today we have a motor which is stable and will be tested shortly.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2015 01:46

ramana wrote:TusharM, How does Barak 8 compare to Standard SM-2 or PAC III or MEADS?



SM-2 is a class by itself. So true comparison should be B-8, PAC III and MEADS.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1913
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby srin » 18 Jun 2015 09:15

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:TusharM, How does Barak 8 compare to Standard SM-2 or PAC III or MEADS?



SM-2 is a class by itself. So true comparison should be B-8, PAC III and MEADS.


And Aster-30

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 » 18 Jun 2015 17:35

Viv S wrote:
Sagar G wrote:Tell me the advantages, we already know why Murica wants us to be a part of MTCR now that we have demolished it and shoved it right back in it's paper smitten ass.


There are missile & UAV components (particularly engines) that would become available, not just from the US but also UK & France. Our domestic UAVs & missile systems will get export access to foreign markets with the opportunity of carving out their own cost competitive niche.

Getting sentimental about it as you are doing, will only pre-empt a sensible decision. Fortunately, the GoI especially under the current leadership doesn't suffer from that handicap.


Click

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 18 Jun 2015 20:11

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:TusharM, How does Barak 8 compare to Standard SM-2 or PAC III or MEADS?



SM-2 is a class by itself. So true comparison should be B-8, PAC III and MEADS.


Long back Israel evaluated SM2(aka SM 6) for their need(It was on offer). Then went on to develop Barak-8. Info from them is Barak-8 provides much more capability than what could SM6 offer.

Sure take away is that Barak-8 performance in engaging low level targets ( aka Brahmos type) exceeds that of SM6.

SM6 can engage high mach targets at high altitudes, but not so clear on brahmos type at low level.

While Barak-8 is silent on anti-ballistic role, SM6 can do that.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 18 Jun 2015 20:48

My understanding is SM-3 is anti ballistic while SM-6 is anti air.

While Barak-8 has a lower range, its engagement envelope is much better than SM-6. It has a high single hit probability, eliminating the launch of a two missile salvo.

Also, ballistic missiles are useless at sea unless nuclear armed.

Ballistic missiles on land are launched against static targets (Cities/Bases) or semi static targets (relatively slow moving army formations or temporary logistics bases) and guided by INS.

Ships at sea are moving. Fast moving between 25-30 knots. Their sizes are smaller than the CEP of the best ballistic missiles. Even a near miss with a conventional warhead will just rock the boat.

Any use of nuclear weapons will lead to an all out nuclear war.

Anyways, in the event of ballistic missiles being used at sea, missiles like AAD and radars like swordfish can be easily navalized.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2015 21:10

actually SM6 has a amraam derived 2nd stage , has twice the range of Barak8 (bigger missile) and 2nd stage is agile and active enough to go after fighter and cruise missiles at extended range. I am not sure its in production yet.

the SM2 is the old warhorse more fit for high level long range work , hence backed up by ESSM for medium range agile targets and RAM for ciws. one TBMD derivative has been evolved. SM2 can take on high mach targets at high level. I am not sure how good against sea skimmers - maybe ESSM does it.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3373
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rsingh » 18 Jun 2015 21:48

China made some missile that has speed of 10 M ? How to counter such missile? Unkil is browning pants and it is a real dhoti shivering moment.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tushar_m » 18 Jun 2015 22:51

Barak 8 is 275 kg length 4.5 meter diameter 0.54 m(wiki uncle) ----> Range 70km (navy) 120km (army/air-force etc)

SM2 is 1350 kg length 8 meter diameter 1.57 m ------> Range 120- 185 km (difference for SM-1ER &SM-2ER)


From above details anyone can deduce that there is huge difference in weight class & size between the two missiles.

But when you start comparing size/weight vs Range etc (also seeker tech. i guess) Barak 8 is a clear winner.

DRDO cheif has already said that range of missiles is not a problem now but we need seeker tech for these long or V.Long range missiles.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 18 Jun 2015 22:51

tsarkar wrote:My understanding is SM-3 is anti ballistic while SM-6 is anti air.

While Barak-8 has a lower range, its engagement envelope is much better than SM-6. It has a high single hit probability, eliminating the launch of a two missile salvo.

Also, ballistic missiles are useless at sea unless nuclear armed.

Ballistic missiles on land are launched against static targets (Cities/Bases) or semi static targets (relatively slow moving army formations or temporary logistics bases) and guided by INS.

Ships at sea are moving. Fast moving between 25-30 knots. Their sizes are smaller than the CEP of the best ballistic missiles. Even a near miss with a conventional warhead will just rock the boat.

Any use of nuclear weapons will lead to an all out nuclear war.

Anyways, in the event of ballistic missiles being used at sea, missiles like AAD and radars like swordfish can be easily navalized.


1.
My understanding is SM-3 is anti ballistic while SM-6 is anti air.


SM6 has secondary role of anti-ballistic as well as anti-ship. Even land-attack if i'm not wrong. It has motor from SM3(the more powerful anti-ballistic missile) and has multi mode seeker.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-6/
SM-6 has also been selected to fulfill the U.S. Navy's Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) role and will provide defense against ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight, succeeding the SM-2 Blk IV missile. The initial version of the SBT, Increment 1, is to enter service around 2015, with a subsequent version, called Increment 2, to enter service around 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard
The Standard missile two became operational in the late 1970s and was deployed operationally with the Aegis Combat System in 1983. Both Standard one and two were used against both surface and air targets during Operation Praying Mantis. On July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300B2, using two SM-2MR missiles from her forward launcher.[7] In 1988 the Iranian Kaman-class missile boat Joshan was disabled by RIM-66 Standard missiles during Operation Praying Mantis.[8]


2.
Their sizes are smaller than the CEP of the best ballistic missiles

With GPS and multi mode seekers ( no shortage of real-estate in big ballistic nose cone) CEP can be much smaller in single digit - What can be called as pin point accuracy. Agni missiles reported to be having single digit accuracy and zero CEP reported for Prithvi missile.
With americans initiatives such as Global Prompt Strike, there was very palpable disquiet from russians that there silos are now vulnerable to conventional strike. It means ballistic missile CEP is much reduced with direct impact potential of striking ICBM silo doors.

Of course the big question remains, whether BM can hit moving targets at sea. In case of CBG being capital ship, you need to be prepared for all eventuality.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 18 Jun 2015 23:26

It is not about seeker but maneuverability of the missile.

Typically BMs use skid-to-turn capabilities using thrust vectoring or gas thrusters for course correction. Works if the target is static or isn't significantly diverging from its track. Like a city or even another ballistic missile.

However, for targets that manoeuver significantly from an established track, like ships & aircraft, one needs bank-to-turn capabilities to follow such targets.

Like Python 5 missile that has 12+ control surfaces, including large movable forward fins.

Like the LRSAM with 8 movable control surfaces
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qsrSJeK9b0o/U ... a+2013.JPG

I've seen no ballistic missiles with control surfaces that would enable it follow after maneuvering targets.

LRSAM is designed with bank-to-turn capabilities and great against aircraft but not against BMs. AAD is designed with skid-to-turn capabilities and great against BMs but not against aircraft. Which is why we need both missiles.

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby VibhavS » 18 Jun 2015 23:54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2fXChvE6WQ

Here is an interesting documentary on the Standard Missile. May answer all the questions on the Missile Modifications and uses.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cybaru » 19 Jun 2015 02:09

Eh? What? why?

http://www.oneindia.com/international/f ... 81273.html

"France has agreed 'in principle' to India's request for a crucial internal guidance technology to be provided by French company Safran (Sagem) for the BrahMos missiles. The issue was discussed in a bilateral meeting between the French Minister of Defence Jean-Yves Le Drian and visiting Indian Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 05:13

Singha wrote:actually SM6 has a amraam derived 2nd stage , has twice the range of Barak8 (bigger missile) and 2nd stage is agile and active enough to go after fighter and cruise missiles at extended range. I am not sure its in production yet.

the SM2 is the old warhorse more fit for high level long range work , hence backed up by ESSM for medium range agile targets and RAM for ciws. one TBMD derivative has been evolved. SM2 can take on high mach targets at high level. I am not sure how good against sea skimmers - maybe ESSM does it.


SM6 is in production and operationally deployed. You are correct, the rationale was to have the SM2 concentrate on supersonic or subsonic missiles in the 'cruise phase' and keep the ESSM in the sub-50 km phase of flight to cover all possible threats. Its much easier to shoot down a supersonic missile that is 200 km out and at medium or high altitudes provided you have the targeting resources to go out and do so.

China made some missile that has speed of 10 M ? How to counter such missile? Unkil is browning pants and it is a real dhoti shivering moment.


All ballistic missiles have very high terminal mach speeds. SM6 can shoot down ballistic missiles in their terminal phase although the SM3 is the go to since you ideally want to knock them out in the exo-atmospheric phase.

The current preparation is for a future perhaps 10-15 years out where cruise missiles are going to have speeds of around mach 5 - mach 10. The US is already investing a very large amount of money in the Mach 5 to Mach 6 category both in the cruise missile domain (HSSW) and in the boost glide missile (ballistic) category. While the latter can be intercepted using existing missiles provided the targeting and tracking is improved (due to shorter reaction times) the former require improved interceptors. This means upgrading both terminal interceptors in the PAC-3 MSE and the THAAD, in addition to the the SM6 and SM3 capabilities going forward. THAAD-ER received funding in this years budget (for next year) and will be developed over the next 5-6 years or so.

With faster speeds on the horizon, they want to make sure that the unique capabilities of the THAAD (it can shoot down missiles both in the endoatmosphere and the exoatmosphere) is kept up with the threat as it develops.

Kanson wrote:
Long back Israel evaluated SM2(aka SM 6) for their need(It was on offer). Then went on to develop Barak-8. Info from them is Barak-8 provides much more capability than what could SM6 offer.

Sure take away is that Barak-8 performance in engaging low level targets ( aka Brahmos type) exceeds that of SM6.

SM6 can engage high mach targets at high altitudes, but not so clear on brahmos type at low level.

While Barak-8 is silent on anti-ballistic role, SM6 can do that.


SM6 is longer ranged missile (aprox. 200nm range according to JANES), with performance at those ranges. Its a part of a 2 layered protection for high speed cruise missiles. It is networked enabled and recently shot down a supersonic cruise missile (most likely a Coyote at Mach 2.5 which it has also shot down multiple times in the past) beyond the horizon under NIFC-CA. Thats the raison d'être for the SM6 since the USN wanted to shoot down targets (air breathing or rocket) farther out and wanted a layered capability that covers exoatmospheric intercepts, long range intercept of aircrafts, terminal stage ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles in addition to the terminal defense capability of sea-skimming cruise missiles using the ESSM. Ideally due to the sea skimming phase of very fast missiles you want to shoot them down in the cruise phase when you have a better chance to react given the distances involved. The SM2 and now the SM6 do exactly that while the SM3 family takes care of the space kills, and ESSM short ranged (still a 40-50 km missile). Although the SM6 can be launched at a short range as well there is the ESSM blk. I & II (in EMD phase) available for that task and it has also shot down supersonic sea skimming missiles.

SM6 would have looked a lot different had the ESSM not been there, or had the ESSM_Active (Blk. II) not been in the works. Its to balance out the cost equation, a single launcher will carry 4 ESSM-II's that costs less than 1/4 of the SM6. You do not need to shoot an SM6 at ranges where you have the ESSM perform the intercept unless there is an emergency and you are out of options. You pay the 'top dollar' for the SM6 to get the capability to use an off board sensor and kill a missile from afar or shoot down cruise missiles over land as it has demonstrated.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... w-emd.html

Navy Network Helps SM-6 Find, Kill Supersonic Target It Can’t See

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/supe ... -key-test/

SM6 can engage high mach targets at high altitudes, but not so clear on brahmos type at low level.


At the ranges the SM6 is designed to achieve its kill supersonic anti-ship missiles are not going to be in the sea-skimming phase of flight. If ship launched, the ships need to get much closer to go on an all-out sea skimming profile. The Brahmos is not a threat to AEGIS ships or the US CVN, the Chinese cruise missiles very much are what they are looking at, and what the layered defense is meant to defeat. One also has to figure out soft-kill techniques and recent developments when judging a particular capability.

Image

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:TusharM, How does Barak 8 compare to Standard SM-2 or PAC III or MEADS?



SM-2 is a class by itself. So true comparison should be B-8, PAC III and MEADS.


PAC3 and MEADS are systems that are different from one another in some significant ways yet both systems now share the same missile in the MSE.

Think of the MSE as the SM6 for land platforms (although lockheed has at times offered it for naval applications)..It has some terminal ballistic missile intercept capability and is most likely quite good within that envelope given that it was selected for the MEADS instead of upgrading other weapons. For land based Endo and Exo-atmospheric kills the THAAD is preffered given its much larger capability. THAAD is strictly an anti-missile defense system so for land it is used along with the Patriot to cover all bases.

All the radars are now talking to one another, so a TPY-2 track from Turkey can be handed off to an S band AEGIS radar in europe or in the ocean etc...

arnabh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 00:51

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby arnabh » 19 Jun 2015 06:46


tushar_m

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tushar_m » 19 Jun 2015 07:24

The Brahmos is not a threat to AEGIS ships or the US CVN, the Chinese cruise missiles very much are

Sorry i didn't get this point.

A Missile in its 4th upgrade & a design for a whole new missile(hyper-sonic) is not a threat but a missile which is still not ready is a threat. ????

Please do tell your views

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 19 Jun 2015 07:32

tushar_m wrote:The Brahmos is not a threat to AEGIS ships or the US CVN, the Chinese cruise missiles very much are

Sorry i didn't get this point.

A Missile in its 4th upgrade & a design for a whole new missile(hyper-sonic) is not a threat but a missile which is still not ready is a threat. ????

Please do tell your views


Because Brahmos is operated by friendlies. Chinese on the other hand are....

tushar_m

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tushar_m » 19 Jun 2015 10:09

Threat to any Naval Vessel will not be determined by whether the missile is operated by friendly or not.

If Brahmos or any of its version(russian) end up with Iran/Syria etc then will it change the idea ????.

The threat are checked for friendly & foe all alike.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby symontk » 19 Jun 2015 10:24

tsarkar wrote:DRDO dual pulse motor http://i.imgur.com/02uhMFs.jpg and here http://i.imgur.com/alZru.jpg



for this dual pulse motor, is the bottom one fired first or the top one, anyone knows?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 14:28

tushar_m wrote:The Brahmos is not a threat to AEGIS ships or the US CVN, the Chinese cruise missiles very much are

Sorry i didn't get this point.

A Missile in its 4th upgrade & a design for a whole new missile(hyper-sonic) is not a threat but a missile which is still not ready is a threat. ????

Please do tell your views


Threat in terms of what the AEGIS ships or the CVN is likely to face up against. The Brahmos hasn't been exported to a nation that is a strong threat to the USN's assets so the driving point for the AEGIS path forward is more of the ballistic missiles (DF21 types) and the saturation from subsonic, hard to detect missiles/UAV's, and of course the sea skimming cruise missile (supersonic) that has been a threat for decades.

Of course all missile developments are followed and used to determine the path forward for your AD's (Friendly or those with adversaries) but when it comes down to hardcore 'cash' investments your threats are prioritized. Not to say that the the supersonic-sea-skimming threat does not exist from China, they have quite a few missiles and are planning new ones as well and that is what the SM6 does by pushing the ship's defenses out to 200 nm. The reason why the SM6 requirements were framed the way they were, was because NIFC-CA was being developed...The ESSM Blk II also builds up on the standard ESSM that shoots down sea-skimming targets, and adds an active seeker.

If Brahmos or any of its version(russian) end up with Iran/Syria etc then will it change the idea ????.


Yes that will change the calculus. But do keep in mind, supersonic sea-skimming missiles have been a threat to USN ships for a long time and they do get better and better with every generation. The threat was a part of the planning for a long time with AEGIS, Standard Missile and the ESSM family, and the reason why the USN has always developed, and maintained an arsenal of sea-skimming supersonic target missiles and shoot them off (and so do the allies) against its defenses few times every year. Most expect that the current hypersonic research in addition to yielding in a high speed scramjet cruise missile and/or a hypersonic BGV will most likely also result in an updated target missile as the Standard missile and the THAAD family are developed and tested out for that threat category as well. So the USN does spend a serious amount of money to develop supersonic cruise missile defense, and the approach is two-pronged i.e. to extend the ship's defense out to 200 or so nm and kill the missile in its cruise phase when it is not down on the ocean floor, and at the same time upgrade the sub 50 km missile for terminal defense against a sea-skimming target. Both options are routinely tested every year against a sea skimming supersonic threat that simulate various degrees of complexities.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/0 ... andar.html

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-syste ... _Sheet.pdf

Image

Supersonic cruise missiles are and have been a developing threat. Conventional ballistic missiles in the anti-ship role are relatively newer and although it was rightly pointed out - that the complete system including a missile able to maneuver against a moving target at sea, sensor coverage to be able to pick up a ship out of a pack when others around it (in reality the carrier group is highly spread out, and only gets close together for photo ops ;) ) are trying to project the signature of the carrier, have the ability to bring to bear space assets for targeting and C2C support in a degraded or denied environment (Space kills+Cyber) - has never been fired ( and you can't really get a working system until you test, test, test and test constantly) it still is the most significant challenge facing the USN when it comes to A2AD techniques of its most advanced threats.

The EMRG (Railgun) development is receiving the sort of funding and accelerated work partly because of this developing threat. It is being designed with an ABM capability and that will be added as rounds at the moment are being developed for specific anti-ballistic-missile defense capabilities providing the sort of magazine depth and asymmetric solutions to counter ballistic missiles.

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/05/navy-wa ... s-says-rfi

So yes each and every component of the ship's defense is getting investments to counter multiple evolving threats including that of supersonic cruise missiles. They aren't packing in just one missile and asking it to do everything from knocking out ballistic missiles in space, killing satellites, destroying air breathing and rocket powered threats as far out as 200 nm or shooting down sea skimming threats at 50 km. 3 Missiles make up the layered approach along with the Phalanx and in the "in development" projects include the Electro Magnetic Railgun and Directed Energy weapons that further complicate the anti-ship missile capability.

For Anti surface Warfare the LRASM and Tomahawk are extremely smart choices to pursue while capability is being developed for the long term Anti surface role (2025+), it forces an enemy to pack its ships with Missile defense capability to fend off either a 300-400 nm missile (LRASM-A) or a close to 1000 nm missile that the US ships can carry a lot of in their VLS. Every missile defense missile a chinese ship carries takes away from the very large supersonic missile it can carry as pictured above. The DF21 being a land missile does throw its fair share of challenges as the USN would need need to strongly collaborate with USAF assets (RQ180 and LRS-B types) to quickly neutralize launch sites and targeting to provide access to its ships.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Jun 2015 16:30, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 19 Jun 2015 15:11

in the above pic how is the P3 tracking the missile? or is it merely for drawing sake.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 15:15

Singha wrote:in the above pic how is the P3 tracking the missile? or is it merely for drawing sake.


I think the P3 is perhaps provding cues to the Coyote and to the launch site (Linking) to effectively use the missile to target the ship...Its not the strategy to counter the missile. For that NIFCCA employees the E2D and other assets. A target missile has the speed, has the maneuvering required to simulate modern threats (such as going right down and having the weaving capability to complicate terminal defense) but its not going to have the sensor reach, capability or strength to start finding targets on its own and doing that sort of processing...If they did they would cost as much as an anti-ship missile and would defeat the purpose of a target missile (the reason why a couple of projects before the coyote were cancelled because the USN wanted the ability to weaponize the target that added cost and complexity - the coyote in its current form cannot be weaponized easily). A target missile also has to have the ability to miss a target in cases where it is not intercepted so in that regard its a bit different from the anti ship missile as well. The Coyote takes a first generation Aerojet (AMC) VFDR and packs that into a design they had earlier..They didn't even wait for the AerGen solid fuel development to be complete and went in with something that is extremely smokey but does get the missile to the speed, gets the range etc...There were plans to switch over to AerGen as was used on the ramjet HARM and used on the Raytheon ramjet triple target terminator missile, but that never materialized. The object was to simulate modern missiles at the lowest possible cost.

Image

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 19 Jun 2015 19:55

symontk, the bottom or aft motor fires first.

Or else it will burn up being in debris field!

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1913
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby srin » 19 Jun 2015 21:24

ramana wrote:symontk, the bottom or aft motor fires first.

Or else it will burn up being in debris field!


Nag is the sole exception, AFAIK

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2015 22:05

Nag is a two stage missile with physically separate booster & sustainer. Though the booster is not discarded, and the boost motor is ahead of the sustainer motor. However, the motors are separate.

Quite different from a dual pulse motor that's a physically single entity.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2015 08:39

IDRW

France has agreed ‘in principle’ to India’s request for a crucial internal guidance technology to be provided by French company Safran (Sagem) for the BrahMos missiles. The issue was discussed in a bilateral meeting between the French Minister of Defence Jean-Yves Le Drian and visiting Indian Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday.

Singh told Media India Group in an exclusive interview in Paris that he had already discussed the issue with the senior management of Sagem, which of course had agreed to provide the technology, if the French government gave its permission.

“Following this, I raised the issue with the French minister and he told me that he did not see a problem in this technology being given to BrahMos and now Sagem will have to apply for the permission to the French government for the technology transfer to happen,” a confident Singh said.

Singh pointed out that Sagem would not be transferring the technology to the Indian government but to BrahMos, which is an Indo-Russian joint venture, even though the navigation system is for missiles of below 300 km range.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby arun » 21 Jun 2015 13:56

Link for the above story about Safran Sagem being likely to provide guidance technology for the Brahmos PJ-10 Missile:

India's BrahMos missiles to be equipped with cutting-edge French guidance technology

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_22539 » 22 Jun 2015 05:48

^What for? What makes the Sagem gadget so much better?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2374
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 22 Jun 2015 05:54

Likely for miniaturization of the seeker for Brahmos M. Russia have lagged a bit when it comes to that aspect
Last edited by John on 22 Jun 2015 05:55, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2015 05:54

IDRW

France has agreed ‘in principle’ to India’s request for a crucial internal guidance technology to be provided by French company Safran (Sagem)


Singh pointed out that Sagem would not be transferring the technology to the Indian government but to BrahMos,.


Duuuh what am I missing? France is going to "supply technology" but is not going to transfer technology.

In other words France might sell some product to India. :shock: This is news?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2374
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 22 Jun 2015 06:06

Shiv they are transfering tech, the tech transfer is for Brahmos corp.

Think people missed one important nugget about barak 8 article is that extended range can be fired from exsisting launchers. Which means both Kolkata and P15B are Barak 8 ER capable. Barak 8 ER is in class with cancelled Aster 45 and SM 2 Blk 3.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_22539 » 22 Jun 2015 08:05

John wrote:Likely for miniaturization of the seeker for Brahmos M. Russia have lagged a bit when it comes to that aspect


I thought there was mention of the tech being related to inertial guidance, which per my understanding is one area where we need no help.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_27581 » 22 Jun 2015 09:35

saw something very interesting in delhi ring road today, airforce trucks carrying ..some offensive payload..sadly one truck broke and caused a traffic jam..just wondering couldn't they move stuff at night just like IA does..at least it will offer some notional secrecy..

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2015 10:52

Missile Attack : India has a new generation of Air-to-Air Missiles
http://www.forceindia.net/MissileAttack.aspx

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1162
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby dinesha » 22 Jun 2015 11:56

BrahMos to Boost the Strike Capacity of Indian Air Force
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 879636.ece
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: It’s primed to be a packed year ahead for the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile with upcoming flight-test of the missile aboard a modified Su-30 MKI of the Air Force and the prospect of the Indian Army raising two more BrahMos missile regiments.

The BrahMos air-launched version will be flight-tested aboard the IAF’s Su-30 MKI fighter in 2015 itself, Sudhir K Mishra, CEO and managing director of Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd (BAPL), told ‘Express’ during a recent visit to the company’s Thiruvananthapuram unit.

“The Nasik division of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has completed the modification of Su-30 MKI for carrying BrahMos missiles. We are planning to test the missile this year itself once it has been integrated to the fighter,” Mishra said. “It will take about four to five months to complete the instrument flight test, the dummy test and the actual flight,” he said.

BAPL has so far handed over more than 100 BrahMos missiles to the 4th BrahMos missile regiment of the Army. “We are also looking at the possibility of raising the 5th and 6th BrahMos regiments,” Mishra said. Other plans, including fitting six ships of the Indian Navy with the 290-km missile, are on the anvil.

In May, the army had successfully tested an advanced version of the missile with steep-diving capability.

On foreign customers lining up for the missile, Mishra said that it was up to the Centre to decide. “The BAPL is ready to meet any production order, subject to the Government of India approval. It is for the government to decide where to export and whom to export it to,” he said. The Russian government has absolutely no problem with such orders, he said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23837
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby SSridhar » 22 Jun 2015 16:44

The air launched BrahMos is a continuing saga. Many deadlines have come and gone. Let us keep our fingers crossed, therefore.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2374
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 22 Jun 2015 17:50

Arun Menon wrote:
John wrote:Likely for miniaturization of the seeker for Brahmos M. Russia have lagged a bit when it comes to that aspect


I thought there was mention of the tech being related to inertial guidance, which per my understanding is one area where we need no help.


Yes that is right, meant to say seeker and on board guidance.

SSridhar wrote:The air launched BrahMos is a continuing saga. Many deadlines have come and gone. Let us keep our fingers crossed, therefore.

IMO i think it is better option for IAF to wait for Brahmos-M than induct a missile that can be carried by just one platform and even then it requires su-30mki to be modified for that role.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 22 Jun 2015 20:05

Brahmos M, Brahmos II or airlaunched Brahmos.. none of these variants will see the light of day until Russians get really motivated. They still own core technologies AFAIK, like metallurgy & engine tech.

They still hold the IP and design details on Su platform, which took us ~5 years to modify Su 30 to carry current Brahmos because of uncooperative Russian (money problems).

Either we get them on-board on these variants or stop calling it Brahmos XYZ and create new missile family on our own.

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 » 22 Jun 2015 21:39

The inertial guidance for Brahmos is most probably for land based MAL's inertial guidance and not for the missile.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests