Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 30 Dec 2016 23:42

^
Good, but is the test going to be on Jan 2nd or anytime before Jan 17th?

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 31 Dec 2016 00:32

I am pretty sure in Anti Ship or Carrier killer role Shaurya or K-15 will finds its niche role. Arihants and future SSN's may carry them but the current DDG's cannot take the 6.2 tonne missile. It makes a lot more sense than Tomahawk, Barbur or DingDong-21 sort of BM for carrier killing role.

The new NAV area warning may also be for K-4 Mk2 test? In depressed trajectory.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Dec 2016 02:46

rakall great job. from now on we don't have to wonder about what is range of test article.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Dec 2016 03:13

How sir? We don't know the trajectory. It might just be a lofted profile. I want to go with the 5000 km test of Agni-V based on the Navarea report. But Routs report of 2,500 km test is difficult for me to put aside. Actually, the later makes sense to me. They know how far they can hit, then why send the entire logistical support 5,000 km away.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Dec 2016 03:51

Use info of 580 km apogee for A5. Does 2500 km range for A5 allow such an apogee!

Also can see splash down of fuze for 2500 km range while ships are near 5000 km?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 31 Dec 2016 03:58

What's needed is not more anti-ship but rather land attack cruise missiles.

Low cost, low tech, can be mass produced and easy to deploy to any part of the country by the hundreds.

That is what the Nirbhay project is supposed to be.

As to why they cannot hit a fixed target after over a decade of development, the project management needs to be audited and more than likely replaced by a more experienced external team.

They need to do this immediately or this project will fail.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Dec 2016 03:58

Ramana sir,

I don't know how to calculate range from the apogee. I have always loved to learn. ~~Where should I start looking?~~

P.S. Got it. Studying...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Dec 2016 04:02

Neshant sir,

Humble request: Let's not jump the gun. We don't know what is wrong with Nirbhay. Let the committee find out. Things will be sorted out soon. India will not throw away something as critical as a cruise missile development so easily.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Dec 2016 07:08

Use elliptic formula. Use center of earth as one foci. Use all km units.

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Dec 2016 07:56

kurup wrote:New NAVAREA Warning isuued for 2000km missile test .............

Thanks Kurup

.

May I request you to do the same map generating and distance calculating exercise for the just past Agni V aka Agni 5 test using Navarea Warning data out out ?.

Would love to see what the distance, especially that of the second more southerly box works out to

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Dec 2016 15:17

In this post by Austin in the Arihant thread, Rear Adn Sushil Ramsay claims that K-15 is MIRVd with 8 warheads.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 31 Dec 2016 15:42

SSridhar wrote:In this post by Austin in the Arihant thread, Rear Adn Sushil Ramsay claims that K-15 is MIRVd with 8 warheads.

There must have been a mistake. I really don't see how a missile designed to fit in 3 units to one missile tube of the Arihant can have 8 warheads.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 31 Dec 2016 17:12

Does the Agni-5 have a BGRV?
Looking at Arun's slides, it is unclear.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2016 18:15

didnt A2 itself have a BGRV given its very long RV ?

what is diff if any between a MIRV, MARV and BGRV?

my idea is MIRV warhead is unpowered and just deviates ballistically from a zig zagging powered bus stage that holds the exposed warheads
classical mirv bus here from minuteman-3

not sure how MARV and BGRV build atop this...after separation are the warhead(s) also powered and can do complex 3D moves to complicate ABM intercept calculations at the cost of losing raw speed? or its a beefed up bus with more fuel and more dance moves?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Dec 2016 19:19

PratikDas wrote:
SSridhar wrote:In this post by Austin in the Arihant thread, Rear Adn Sushil Ramsay claims that K-15 is MIRVd with 8 warheads.
There must have been a mistake. I really don't see how a missile designed to fit in 3 units to one missile tube of the Arihant can have 8 warheads.

They can have 3*300kt FBF/BF or 8*20kt fission RV ,depends on the size/weight of physics package and rv and that's how major power increase their upload potential.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Dec 2016 19:34

Singha wrote:
what is diff if any between a MIRV, MARV and BGRV

MIRV = Bus carries many RV , fall is pure ballistic , accuracy depends on injection by BUS , RV is imparted spin before separation to improve accuracy

MaRV = same like MIRV but each RV carries small fuel or gasgenerator for final correction /manoeuvring post re-entry for better improve accuracy it can glide towards target for few tens of km and fall is not pure ballistic

MARV same like MaRV but carries more fuel/engine like Agni 5 reaction control system , can boost glide at high altitude in atmosphere at very high speed for 100s of km towards target ie large cross range and manouver at high speed to make anti- ABM manoeuvre and can manoeuvre accurately towards target while it boost glide .

Next generation is Hypersonic Glide Vehicle

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2016 20:40

a unique creature was this cancelled 8000km range mach3 buran ICCM (inter continental cruise missile) ...24m long and 125 ton weight

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/burya.jpg

John · Post by **John** » 31 Dec 2016 22:24

Cain Marko wrote:
What about something like the shaurya for anti carrier roles. Hypersonic and can reach 1200km in 10 minutes. Fat enough to put a large seeker for terminal maneuvering for pin point accuracy. Wonder if we can have a few of these on 10k ton ddg for land attack as well.

That would be good anti carrier weapon I speculated about that a while back and it could be deployed by Arihant as well. Hopefully we see more of Shaurya next year.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 31 Dec 2016 22:32

Hindustan Shipyards, Vizag, was building a missile monitoring ship, is it launched and deployed?
Any news?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Jan 2017 00:08

Ramana sir,

You are correct, if the data published by Ajai Shukla is for this test: burnout speed of 5-6 kmps and burnout altitude of about 260 km, then the resultant projectile will be around 5000 km.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2017 03:11

Am glad we have someone else who can do range calculations.
Welcome to club.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jan 2017 04:36

Austin wrote:
PratikDas wrote: There must have been a mistake. I really don't see how a missile designed to fit in 3 units to one missile tube of the Arihant can have 8 warheads.
They can have 3*300kt FBF/BF or 8*20kt fission RV ,depends on the size/weight of physics package and rv and that's how major power increase their upload potential.

To fit 8 Warhead into K-15 of diameter 0.74 m, each Warhead must have a diameter less than 22.9 cm.

Perhaps we can do that. I have no reference.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 01 Jan 2017 04:55

I am sure he means the K4-5 can carry those MIRV's. I remember a presentation which mentioned K-5 with 4-6 warheads. The K-15 carries a single warhead.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2017 05:07

Bheeshma wrote:I am sure he means the K4-5 can carry those MIRV's. I remember a presentation which mentioned K-5 with 4-6 warheads. The K-15 carries a single warhead.

i agree. K15 is single payload.
K4 also same single payload.
K5 I don't know.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 01 Jan 2017 07:08

PratikDas wrote:To fit 8 Warhead into K-15 of diameter 0.74 m, each Warhead must have a diameter less than 22.9 cm.

Perhaps we can do that. I have no reference.

Not a straightforward calculation without knowing more. The vehicle can be configured many different ways. The following is from a recent Isro launch.

ISRO scatsat launch

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jan 2017 11:11

vera_k wrote:
PratikDas wrote:To fit 8 Warhead into K-15 of diameter 0.74 m, each Warhead must have a diameter less than 22.9 cm.

Perhaps we can do that. I have no reference.
Not a straightforward calculation without knowing more. The vehicle can be configured many different ways. The following is from a recent Isro launch.

ISRO scatsat launch

Sorry, I accidentally reported your post with the full message I intended as a reply

I wrote there that it is the K-15 SLBM we're talking about, whose dimensional constraints are well understood given Arihant's dimensions. It's not like there's freedom for a massive fairing and multi-tiered stacking like with ISRO's launchers.

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Jan 2017 13:20

The Hindu is reporting that tri-Services’ Strategic Forces Command (SFC) will conduct a test of Agni IV aka Agni 4 tomorrow ie: Monday Jan 2 from a road mobile launcher located at Abdul Kalam Island the erstwhile Wheeler Island.

Not sure if this test will actually happen as the only NAVAREA VIII warning for a Missile Test that is posted on the hydrobharat.nic.in website is for Jan 17th :

Agni-IV to be test-fired tomorrow

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 01 Jan 2017 13:43

arun wrote:
kurup wrote:New NAVAREA Warning isuued for 2000km missile test .............
Thanks Kurup .

May I request you to do the same map generating and distance calculating exercise for the just past Agni V aka Agni 5 test using Navarea Warning data out out ?.

Would love to see what the distance, especially that of the second more southerly box works out to

The centre of the box is approximately 4500 km from the launch point while if you take the extreme end then it's almost 5000km .

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 01 Jan 2017 13:44

rakall wrote:
kurup wrote:New NAVAREA Warning isuued for 2000km missile test

INDIA EAST COAST – BAY OF BENGAL AND NE INDIAN OCEAN (.) CHARTS 31 351 INT 71 (.)

EXPERIMENTAL FLIGHT TRIAL SCHEDULED FROM ITR FROM 020400-020800 AND 060300-060700 UTC JAN 17 IN DANGER ZONE BOUNDED BY

20-48.43N 087-00.57E, 18-12.37N 086-07.11E, 02-40.61N 087-05.29E, 02-44.41N 088-37.82E, 02-55.80N 090-09.74E, 18-24.16N 088-30.44E, 20-49.15N 087-09.37E

2. CANCEL THIS MSG 060800 UTC JAN 17

User trial of Agni-IV !!!

In that case the test must be for a reduced range of A4 otherwise it must be A2 or some other tests .

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Jan 2017 13:45

Thanks Kurup

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 01 Jan 2017 14:17

Elegant pictures by Kurup. What are the software that are being used ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jan 2017 14:38

Sanjay Badri-Maharaj traces the story of Agni-V all the way back to the original Agni missile

The Agni-V: The Culmination To Date Of India’s Missile (R)evolution

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 01 Jan 2017 14:42

Distance between two coordinates can be calculated at

http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 01 Jan 2017 15:03

arun wrote: Thanks Kurup

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 01 Jan 2017 15:03

prasannasimha wrote:Elegant pictures by Kurup. What are the software that are being used ?

Just google earth and Paint .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2017 15:13

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Abdul Kalam Island:

20.7577N,87.0837E

Five points South of Equator:

-25.32,88.44
-25.18,91.04
-24.9,93.63
-14.99,92.60
-15.4,87.64

http://www.darrinward.com/lat-long/?id=2514357

So Kalam island is 20.7577N, 87.084E
Farthest point is -25.32 S, 88.32E
So distance is
5123km using
US National Hurricane Distance calculator

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gccalc.shtml
Using closest point 14.99S , 92.60E
Gives 4018Km.

From NOTAM settles the range. Can't be at 2500km.

5000 km test.....

QED.......

I got ~5000 km from AK Island for the A5 test NOTAM.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 01 Jan 2017 15:28

I got 5123 if you take points 20.7577N, 87.084E and 25.32 S, 88.32E Though there is one way they could have got 2500 Kms - if they had landed it in the first NOTAM area itself by using a very high altitude launch so we would ahve a 2500 Kms range but a very high parabolic/elliptoid arc. Wonder what the highest point would be assuming a 4.5- 5 Kms/second 19 minute flight time

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 01 Jan 2017 15:44

I can tell one thing given a circular profile (non parabolic the height of lobbing would have been 2027 Kms so in essence the lob would have been higher than that to have a flight time of 19 minutes at 5 Kms/second. In essence the Apogee would have been not less than 2027 Kms assuming a flat surface.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Jan 2017 16:37

We would never know the apogee reached and whether the actual trajectory was the usual minimum-energy trajectory or a depressed or even a shaped depressed trajectory over a shorter range

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 01 Jan 2017 19:15

Indranil wrote:Can the gurus here make a list of technologies that India needs to develop? And please don't say something as generic seeker. It would be nice to keep this running list of technologies for which we continue to depend on outside help. Hopefully, it shortens with time. For example, I would love to know what came out of such a list by virtue of co developing MRSAM. Personally, I don't give a damn to how IAI markets it.

If some guru will like to create such a "gyan" only thread, you have my permission and support. Posts on such threads will be highly moderated. Any useless post will attract warnings. It will be a thread for reference only.

Not a guru, but one thing that is missing from their setup (which I know) is a end-to-end "target rack", "impairment/jamming rack" and "processing rack". These are three sets of independent electronics hardware. The "processing rack" has the actual hardware and software (running on actual power supply) that seeks the target in presence of jamming and impairment. The target simulates reflected radar wave when the target is moving / evading.

Various final rev hit-software running Kalman filters or what-not can be run in extreme realistic scenario. Current simulation levels are sufficient to give "confidence" but far from simulating various realistic scenarios.

(usually three separate teams who don't know each other are formed to allow the simulation)

Such setup can also be used to compare various seekers (by inputting noise levels, resolution etc of the seeker in question)