Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2016 13:23

http://www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/spri ... -launch-2/
SPRINT ABM interceptors

SPRINT flight testing started at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in November of 1965. Devoted to SPRINT subsystem testing, the WSMR flight test campaign ended in August 1970 and consisted of 42 shots.

Overall Safeguard system testing was conducted at the Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) beginning in 1970 and extended through 1973. The KMR flight test program consisted of 34 flight tests. The first successful SPRINT intercept of a reentry vehicle took place in December 1970.

On Wednesday, 17 March 1971, SPRINT interceptors FLA-49 and FLA-50 were launched in salvo from Meck Island located on the eastern edge of the Kwajalein Atoll. The target for this mission was a Minuteman I reentry vehicle launched 4,800 miles to the east at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The target was successfully engaged and destroyed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Aug 2016 14:21

We’re the fourth nation to conduct scramjet engine test: ISRO chief

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 28 Aug 2016 18:41

Re Kanson

Google Israel MSOV. My guess about 1000kg 100km range glide bomb.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 28 Aug 2016 20:29

If Air launched Brahmos are nuke capable then there is no way they can be exported. Brahmos is working on a 100-120 Km range missile capable of being launched from Tejas/MIG29 which would be export quality.

Even the land based Brahmos SSM will be tuned down before it can be exported to a SE Asian nation

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Aug 2016 21:41

Did the air dropped Brahmos launch happen?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Aug 2016 22:58

Gyan wrote:Re Kanson

Google Israel MSOV. My guess about 1000kg 100km range glide bomb.

Thanks Gyan. That is exactly my point on Garudaa and Garuthmaa.

India has successfully narrowed the gap, not only narrowed the gap but has excelled and created state of the art technical advancement in Glide technology such as aerofoils.

MSOV is indeed a JSOW equivalent and Indian has something on the likes of JSOW and MSOV, the capability not everyone can boast of.

Israel Military Industries, mostly an ammunition manufacturer, has developed a type of UAV that serves as munitions dispenser, but is looking for a US partner for the Modular Stand-Off Vehicle (MSOV). "We are still hoping to find a partner to complete the system," says president Avi Felder, IMI began development of the MSOV as a direct competitor to the US Raytheon AGM-154A Joint Stand-Off weapon.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nc-221444/

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Aug 2016 23:21

Kanson wrote:
indranilroy wrote:It is very heartening to see all the developments in this front from DRDO

2. Is this the same: PG Kit for HSLD?

Above is not HSLD by any yardstick.

450 kg HSLD bomb
http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/rb/8.htm

250 kg HSLD bomb
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/ind ... _speed.jsp

Please click here. Turn to page 4.

The aim of PG kit is to convert dumb bomb in to a precision strike weapon which increases range of weapon manifold by aerodynamics manoeuvering. The kit is in the form of tail cone and nose cone and can be fitted easily around the bomb body. The tail cone houses mainly electromechanical fin actuation system, INS-GPS module, and a guidance on-board computer. The nose cone comprises of laser seeker module along with electronics.

Flight Control and Interface Electronics Unit

The purpose of flight control and interface electronics unit (FCIEU) is to implement guidance, navigation and control algorithms, interface with aircraft and GPS/INS unit, and issue control surface deflection commands to ACEU. It is required for real-time computing and sufficient I/O capabilities. FCIEU integrates with navigation sensors and implements three-loop autopilots and the trajectory control guidance algorithm. It implements the algorithms, which are computationally intensive and will have constraints of three-loop response time of few millisecond. Unit is also responsible for communicating with all sub-systems with pre-defined protocols on different serial interfaces. It has power source and regulation unit which generates different voltages required by different components on FCIEU and GPS/INS integrated module.

Salient Features
-Interfaces with USB memory for reading mission data
-Interfaces with aircraft over data bus for mission data reading and INS initialisation/ alignment
-Senses the release of the bomb from the aircraft and after pre-defined delay initiates the thermal battery
-Sends control signal to RF switch for correct GPS antenna selection
-Interface with GPS/INS unit for control and navigation Implements guidance and control laws (roll and lateral autopilots)
-Interfaces with ACEU for tail fin control
-Transfers laser code to homing head
-Sends start of scan command to homing head
-Interfaces with homing head for getting line-ofsight (LOS) rate
-Senses impact event/proximity and issue warhead initiation command

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Aug 2016 00:08

Kanson wrote:India has successfully narrowed the gap, not only narrowed the gap but has excelled and created state of the art technical advancement in Glide technology such as aerofoils.

MSOV is indeed a JSOW equivalent and Indian has something on the likes of JSOW and MSOV, the capability not everyone can boast of.

Kanson, I get the spirit, but just a word of caution. These items need to clear service trials and then be inducted in number with all the production hassles worked out, before we can be sure that we have narrowed the gap and equalled what is current world class PGM tech.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Aug 2016 00:20

^ Yes true but what is there to be cautious to acknowledge what is indeed a truly a great achievement? Do likes and dislikes of the service debunks the technological achievement?

^ indranilroy, lets wait and see.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Aug 2016 11:33

The missiles that are missing from our R&D line up seem to be a WVR IR Guided AAM, Manpad IR guided SAM and a mid range Air to Ground Missile equivalent to Kh-25,29,38 or Maverick or Israeli MARS.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Aug 2016 14:28

It seems that our PGM are:-

IRNSS guided winged Glide bombs 125kg, 1000kg 30km, 1000kg 100km equivalent to SDB, MSOV etc.

JDAM Type kits 250, 500 kg

LGB kits 250kg, 500kg range up to 50 km equivalent to Griffin

IR Guided bombs 500kg equivalent to spice

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Aug 2016 15:36

Kanson wrote:^ Yes true but what is there to be cautious to acknowledge what is indeed a truly a great achievement? Do likes and dislikes of the service debunks the technological achievement?

^ indranilroy, lets wait and see.

Kanson, the challenge is that
a) some tests were successful,
soon becomes
b ) India has arrived, everything is great
to
c) IAF is not inducting, why? must be corruption, this, that
to
d) Idiots in Indian scientific establishment who tricked all of us and didn't do anything but told us everything was great.

you can see the same attitude on this forum repeatedly itself. over raised expectations, then cursing Indian users & developers one after the other.

Actually, the issue is of unrealistic PR by media and raised expectations in average person. DRDO itself is markedly cautious and only detailing progress, we'll know where that progress is once the systems go into trials and production commences.

So my caution. Lets wait and watch.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and while I am very hopeful these systems will be a game changer for AF (since they are available in plenty and will be supported locally), they have to clear user trials and then be mass produced. Last is not such an issue I feel, user trials in a range of conditions will take time (plus usual changes that follow).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Aug 2016 16:04

Two example of why the caution is warranted are Sudarshan and Nirbhay. As is Rustom 2. All programs have achieved various successes -

Sudarshan proved basic seeker technology. Yet we were yet to cross the dynamic control hurdle. It was destabilized after launch.
Nirbhay proved we could make a skimming low flying cruise missile TD - we are yet to demonstrate a local powerplant and seeker integrated with it, plus repeated trials.
Rustom-2 shows that we have a solid TD in-house, which is being used for everything from datalink programs to sensor packages - yet the flight trials are yet to begin and we are still importing Herons.

So my point is by all means look at the +ve's of the program and the fact that they are generating valuable tech. But at the same time, lets be cautious about declaring that we have already arrived.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Aug 2016 18:27

I personally think that Rustum-2 is dead in water due to overweight. In order to prevent long delay, we should simultaneously launch Rustom-3 with turboprop engines like Garrett later HTSE variant and Rustom-4 with Turbofan engines like AL-55 and later HTFE. ISRO is working on SSTO, Scramjet, ion engines, even more advanced cryogenic engines while GSLV MK-3 is still to be launched. We need to commit more funds, more resources and reduce self doubt.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Aug 2016 18:34

Russians have provided 200 engines for Nirbhay but not the technology.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Aug 2016 20:14

Paul, I am yet to see a single proven source that says we did get 200 odd engines. I may be mistaken but these sort of things tend to be very significant and MTCR type constraints may always be there.. Nirbhay success also directly takes away Brahmos orders whose propulsion we are completely dependent on Russia for.

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 30 Aug 2016 09:03

Brahmos range increase:
"And signalling the country’s immunity from western sanctions, DRDO scientists say the 300 km cap on the missile’s range will be removed. The next generation Brahmos is likely to be a longer range weapon. And with the planned increased in speed, the missile will have considerably enhanced kinetic energy despite its smaller size optimised for relatively smaller aircraft such as the MiG-29"

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/04/20/why ... mies_42687

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Aug 2016 21:44

KaranM, It was ADE that hyped Sudershan more than required. still don't get how it lost control and undershot. What was the need to hype it before checking it? As for Nirbhay one of our former members immediately postulated it was the RLG train that didn't perform.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2016 21:53

ADE is also behind the faltering rustom project?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Aug 2016 22:54

I think that Nirbhay is suffering from minor niggles while Rustom-2 has very serious problem of extraordinary over shoot in weight. IIRC HAL won a tender to produce 18 Rustom-2 for ₹ 1500 crores in 2012 and now cannot disclaim responsibility.

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Aug 2016 05:53

I think that Nirbhay is suffering from minor niggles while Rustom-2 has very serious problem of extraordinary over shoot in weight.

Thats what even i had heard from panwallahs in there.

The Rustom team was actually on some sort of PiP( performance improvement plan in IT language) to get cracking or face scrapping since end-user patience had been reached and with other US provided goodies now freely available. Not sure how it has gone along in the past few months. Going by complete lack of any noise, dont think there are any good signs.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 31 Aug 2016 14:17

Singha wrote:ADE is also behind the faltering rustom project?

Autonomous unmanned vehicles are the key to victory in future wars. And India is decades behind in this field compared to other major nations with geopolitical interests. Only Russia apart from India is a laggard in this field.

The best way for India to leapfrog into this club is to establish a new agency dedicated only to development of Autonomous unmanned vehicles (Both Hardware and Software. Software part is increasingly becoming more and more important). DRDO has achieved some great things till now but is simply not cut out for this task.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2016 14:39

right now even the top5 chinese cots drone makers have better tech than us, and the jihadis / saa in syria are using cots drones and tablets to full use daily.

imagine if a IA unit had such quadcopter drones to survey their operating area, forget the huge predator types.

this probably calls for $1b / 10 yr global tender and trials process, the jihadi will scratch his backside and order off amazon for delivery by weekend

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 31 Aug 2016 14:51

Singha wrote:right now even the top5 chinese cots drone makers have better tech than us, and the jihadis / saa in syria are using cots drones and tablets to full use daily.

imagine if a IA unit had such quadcopter drones to survey their operating area, forget the huge predator types.

this probably calls for $1b / 10 yr global tender and trials process, the jihadi will scratch his backside and order off amazon for delivery by weekend

We are using some quacopter and micro drones Sir. One company supplying is IdeaForge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2016 15:38

ramana wrote:KaranM, It was ADE that hyped Sudershan more than required. still don't get how it lost control and undershot. What was the need to hype it before checking it? As for Nirbhay one of our former members immediately postulated it was the RLG train that didn't perform.

Ramana, our folks still dont get what a debacle this business of constantly setting overrealistic timelines and then publicly missing them, can be - often due to overambitious management. The rank and file have to put up with idiocy on a constant basis. To be fair, this is probably an India wide issue and not just a ADE one. For what its worth, the current DRDO head publicly acknowledged this problem and hopefully, it is a step towards fixing it. Every five days, HAL/ADA would announce via leaks a new "timeline" for the Tejas. Which was never fixed. Or we would continue to wait forever.

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 31 Aug 2016 19:50

deejay wrote:
Singha wrote:right now even the top5 chinese cots drone makers have better tech than us, and the jihadis / saa in syria are using cots drones and tablets to full use daily.

imagine if a IA unit had such quadcopter drones to survey their operating area, forget the huge predator types.

this probably calls for $1b / 10 yr global tender and trials process, the jihadi will scratch his backside and order off amazon for delivery by weekend
We are using some quacopter and micro drones Sir. One company supplying is IdeaForge.

Even wedding videos are using drones nowadays!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2016 20:35

there is even a selfie drone that can follow you around.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 02 Sep 2016 10:50

http://izvestia.ru/news/629911

This news article (in Russian) claims that the Russians are going to disregard MCTR and sell us Kaliber Cruise Missles.

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Sep 2016 11:06

^^ Since both are MCTR members, isnt it now a legal thing anyways?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Sep 2016 14:43

sum wrote:^^ Since both are MCTR members, isnt it now a legal thing anyways?

If every country in the world becomes MTCR member, would it mean every one can own ICBMs?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2016 18:29

Singha wrote:there is even a selfie drone that can follow you around.

In this connection, and OT for this thread
https://twitter.com/SputnikInt/status/7 ... 0785078277

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 02 Sep 2016 23:20

This article claims it will be an export version of Kalibr (with a range under 300 km).

http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/20 ... sia_626215

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 02 Sep 2016 23:38

Why would IN want it? Just get Nirbhay working to have a subsonic AShM.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Sep 2016 23:54

sum wrote:^^ Since both are MCTR members, isnt it now a legal thing anyways?

No, MCTR still restricts the export of complete systems. It opens trade in components and associated technologies. It is a technology denial regime.

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Sep 2016 07:15

^^^ So, how does UK get its Tridents ?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 03 Sep 2016 07:23

srin wrote:^^^ So, how does UK get its Tridents ?

When you have enough national comprehensive strength there is always a way.

China proliferates openly to China and NK.

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Sep 2016 07:28

Sorry, but China isn't in the MTCR, isn't it ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Sep 2016 08:55

^^ it would not matter.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Sep 2016 09:58

Need to move production from OFB
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 984720.cms

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Sep 2016 15:00

I don't know if this has been posted before.

DRDO successfully tests 30 and 100km range Glide Bombs in Pokhran

India has moved closer to self-dependence in precision-guided 'smart glide bombs' as it conducted covert trials of these bombs successfully at Pokhran firing range in Jaisalmer on Friday.

Christened as 'Garuthmaa' and 'Garudaa', the 'glide bombs' are being indigenously developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Of these two drop trials, the test of Garudaa, the non-winged glide-bomb, was carried out to evaluate its precision for a range of 30 kilometres on Thursday. In another set of drop trials on Friday, both Garudaa and 'Garuthmaa' were successfully tested from a Su-30 MKI aircraft.

Garuthmaa, the 1,000-kg winged smart glide bomb, was tested for its maximum 100-km range. Top DRDO officials termed the tests as a 'major success'.

It may be mentioned that the trials for a maximum range of 100 kilometres for this '1,000-kg' smart bomb have already been successfully held over the Bay of Bengal, off the Odisha Coast in December 2014 and then in 2015.

One covert trial scheduled for Friday was, however, kept pending due to erratic weather.

Sources in DRDO said that guided by on-board navigation systems, Garuthmaa was tested for its first phase of trials in Thar Desert for assessing its accuracy in hitting a target after gliding for 100 kilometres.

"The bomb was dropped from a Su-30 MKI aircraft for which we got full support from the Pune airbase. User, in this case the IAF, has been involved in development and related trials of this 'smart bomb' from the beginning", said an official, adding that non-winged Garudaa was tested for 30-km range and would be tested for bigger ranges (up to 100 km) in future. DRDO officials shared that the flight path, precision or accuracy, clearance after dropping and other parameters of 'Garuthmaa' were monitored by the radars and other electro-optic systems stationed at the firing range.

'Garudaa', the non-winged version of this guided bomb with a range of 30 kilometres was tested initially three years back. DRDO officials shared that contrary to the conventional 'dumb bombs' which take a free flight after being dropped, guided bombs like 'Guruthmaa' have winglets and on-board navigation and guidance systems enabling these to hit the target with precision after being dropped from varying heights.

Both 'Garuthmaa' and 'Garudaa' are a brainchild of various laboratories of DRDO including Research Centre Imarat in Hyderabad, Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) in Bengaluru, Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) in Chandigarh, Armaments Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) in Pune.