Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Jun 2016 14:37

^^^ So we have 02 Interceptor missiles PAD ( Pradyuman) and AAD (Ashwin).

My reference to the authors expertise areas was because I found it "interesting" to put it non controversially. He was really pursuing a subject far from his core interests and was getting forward names which we, who sit and watch/read as hawks while in India were not aware. Either we have not been following with "hawk eye" sharpness or he has an inside track. If it is the latter, then he will be a good person to follow, hence forth even for missile developments.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jun 2016 16:30

deejay wrote:^^^ So we have 02 Interceptor missiles PAD ( Pradyuman) and AAD (Ashwin).
.

Googling for the same - there seem to be several references to those names exactly as mentioned.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 14 Jun 2016 17:15

Why are people attacking that chap?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Jun 2016 17:21

gakakkad wrote:Why are people attacking that chap?

I have not attacked him sir. It is just a joke. There are many news items about these two missiles. Their names are not well known like Agni etc.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Jun 2016 17:41

gakakkad wrote:Why are people attacking that chap?

Not attacking Doctar saa'b. Just caught my attention. I hadn't heard those names here before and it seems it is something not reported here since google has thrown up multiple references.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Jun 2016 17:50

That chap is probably a BRFite onlee

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Jun 2016 20:04

Pradyumna and Ashwin are known names for some time now. They have been reported in news articles and discussed here on BRF as well. Since the terms AAD and PAD are older, they have tended to stick (just like the name LCA)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jun 2016 00:15

Via SauravJha and SParija twitter

DRDO SAAW

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2016 04:16

Oh! So, it is exactly as we had discussed it to be. Good going.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jun 2016 07:31

Pakistan's new nuke threat: Why India has to worry

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 19 Jun 2016 11:49

Karan M wrote:Via SauravJha and SParija twitter

DRDO SAAW

Cool, looks all TFTA unkil like

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Jun 2016 21:12

It will look even more TFTA once the enclosure / fairing is added to shield the equipment in green and purple.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jun 2016 22:01

indranilroy wrote:Oh! So, it is exactly as we had discussed it to be. Good going.

Glad to have the confirmation. Seems to have seeker, a large body for submunitions perhaps, and no separate propulsion?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 19 Jun 2016 22:33

The slit on the body of the SAAW seems to indicate it will have wings like nirbhay.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jun 2016 22:50

you are right. the reports do note glide capability. 80-110km range capability would make these ideal systems to take on a range of targets. if they can take on moving targets, even better.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 393362.cms

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jun 2016 23:04

btw its very interesting to see the capabilities being matured via HELINA and this SAAW plus even the Rustom program (which has been going pretty slow), but look in particular at even high performance datalinks for programs like Rustom & AEW&C, and then the weapons control systems for Helina et al. The building blocks are being put in place to create an entire ecosystem of PGM types and capabilities.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2016 12:15

Raj Chengappa's sppl feature in IT on the tactical N-missile threat from Pak needs to be taken very seriously.One wishes that there was more debate on the issue.Tx Austin for the link.

The acquisition of such tactical nukes,to be used by Pak to defeat India's "Cold Start" strategy in a short war.We have been spectacularly unsuccessful in restraining either Pak or China from ramping up their nuclear and conventional arms capability against India. The nuclear balance especially is very dangerously tilting away from India with greater momentum.This vulnerability has to be corrected. The Q is how?

Here are a few thoughts.
Firstly,we have to view Pak as part and parcel of a new Chinese imperialism,where Pak is a satellite state,which will follow Chinese instructions and orders against India.The very fact of handing over Gwadar to China and allowing POK to be "occupied" by increasing numbers of Chinese troops indicates that we have been effectively encircled by China from the east,north and west.It is the southern approaches where China has been making strenuous attempts to strangle India through the Port City plan for Colombo and Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka,and acquiring base rights in the Maldives.

From the "arc of encirclement" stretching from Burma in the east ,through Tibet and Nepal in the north and Pak in the east,China can deploy lakhs of troops plus hundreds if not thousands of conventional tactical missiles ,hundreds of aircraft and at least a dozen subs into the IOR in addition to Pak's military strength. Where do we stand against this massive military monster?

Diplomatically our efforts have failed.The US is impotent to rein in Pak for obvious reasons.Pak with the total backing of China gets immunity for its acts of terrorism against India.We have invested too much into the US "stock" and have precious few dividends. Unfortunately our MEA steeped in "Nehruvian dye",a sickly shade of yellow,still imagine that they are succeeding in their brand of diplomacy (where the armed forces are not taken into confidence in structuring India's grand strategy),in actual fact has increased dramatically the military threat to India.Diplomatically our efforts for membership of the NSG are also being stymied by China.

Militarily the news that our 3 BMos regiments may go up in number to 6 (4 launchers and 90 missiles for each @$300M per regiment) is welcome,but we need at least 10 regiments with around 1000 BMos missiles to meet the Sino-Pak JV. $3B is not an unaffordable cost for giving us real tactical strike capability.Some of these missiles could be N-tipped to match Pak's Nasr. The cost of Prithvis compared to BMos is another piece of the puzzle and where P fits in .Dhanush is known to have an N-capability fired from our OPVs. Should we develop an MBRL system ,N-capable,with a range upto 100KM or a new tactical missile,or will increased quantities of our existing ones developed and inducted do? The inescapable fact is that we have to hugely increase the number of strat and tactical N-warheads to meet this new challenge. Allied to this is the acquisition asap of a number of ABM systems,S-300/400 whatever, for cover for our principal cities and military establishments.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jun 2016 20:21

Karan M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Oh! So, it is exactly as we had discussed it to be. Good going.
Glad to have the confirmation. Seems to have seeker, a large body for submunitions perhaps, and no separate propulsion?

Remember our discussion a few pages back.

I agree with the other posters that as an anti-airfield weapon, it is probably INS/GPS guided. One can imagine LCA, Mirage, Jags, Sukhois carrying them.

indranilroy wrote:We know that RCI has already tested a 1000 kg glide bomb. It has now issued a tender for airframe assembly of yet another glide bomb. This one is interesting. The airframe has a square cross section (20cm X 20cm), and a length of 1.86 mtrs. Therefore, this glide bomb is unlikely to weigh over 150 kgs. The folded wings have a total wingspan of about 1.4mtrs.

They are getting about 10 of these airframes made within 5 months of issue of materials from RCI. So expect test flights in about an years time.

indranilroy wrote:The nose looks like this.

Right now, it will be made of an aluminium alloy called HF-15. I am pretty sure that later on it will changed to radome/optically-transparent material.

But the above tender shows that RCI is already working on a variant which is IIR/MMW guided, similar to the Spice 250. Such a weapon is ideal for armed Hawks, IJTs, HTT-40s, and Rustoms to carry. Their hardpoints can't handle much higher loads. Imagine armed HTT-40 patrolling the Maoist infested areas or the coast guard using them to patrol the coasts against suspicious boats. One airplane: 6 hours per sortie capable of taking on any threat presented by the job. Can there be a more cost effective solution?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jun 2016 20:50

^^ this is brilliant. you called the 4 per pylon rack as well.

i wonder if this includes a RF link to enable retargeting as the Spice 250 does. for HELINA, they have a RF link but HELINA is ~8km.

also, moving targets.

heck even a basic capability would do well, right now for AF to supplant/back up its LGBs and build up PGM stocks.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jun 2016 20:51

this with astra if ordered in bulk can do a huge amount to make the IAF really a dissuasive force.

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 23 Jun 2016 15:23

DRDO-working-on-slightly-reduced-range-of-nag-missile

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 883608.cms

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Jun 2016 17:14

^^Stupid question - is Nag Lock-On-Before-Launch??

BTW for a change the headline was not negative like "DRDO fails to achieve required range for NAG even after 15yrs". I almost thought DRDO is working on new version of NAG.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jun 2016 17:32

nileshjr wrote: . . . is Nag Lock-On-Before-Launch??

Yes, it is.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 24 Jun 2016 06:22

^Helina can be lock-on-after-launch also, right?

Another stupid question - even if it is mid day in the desert heat, an active tank with a running engine will be hotter right? So, is this noon time range limitation only applicable to stationary tanks running on a secondary power source or something like that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2016 06:44

https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/stat ... 3837686784

could we have something like this agile LR backpack cruise missile - 32 uvls per man ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2016 11:08

KBDagha wrote:DRDO-working-on-slightly-reduced-range-of-nag-missile

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 883608.cms

By chance, now and then we come across information which tells you the genuine reason(s) behind delay in certain program. Which otherwise as per under-patriots on BRF is running just fine and but for the shenanigans of evil-foreign maal pasand armed forces (Read IA and IAF), should've been inducted for thousands as of yesterday.

In all the reports which have comes out about the issue(s) plaguing NAG and its seeker, never was this bit mentioned in the ET report ever mentioned by anyone. All the while, we'd accusations that NAG seeker may have issue ONLY during peak summer hours. And the experts on BRF has opined and passed judgement that negligible % of combat is likely to happen during this period. So, what was the fuss about performance all about? If not for the evil ways of IA to kill a domestic product!

But now, we have this:

"The missile identifies the target (tank) through infra red seeking. So if the environment is cool and even if the differential temperature is just two degree, it can identify the target," he told reporters here.

"But if the tank is left for hours in summer (sun), that is what we did during the recent trial, the temperature difference between the tank and the environment is negligible and that is the time we cannot meet the targeted four km range," he said.

While the missile had a successful night trial earlier in the year, Christopher said the DRDO was working on a slightly reduced range of "around 3.2 km from the targeted four km".

"So we have requested the defense minister that as a first phase the missile's range be slightly reduced, that too only when used in the middle of the day i.e., between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. So in phase one, we will work on a slightly reduced range and in the next phase we will improve the product improve the product so as to meet all the targets," he said.

What if the same request had been made earlier and relaxation obtained?

BTW - the observation about tank temperature being close to environment temperature tells you a lot about the working condition of armored corps and mechanized infantry chaps.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Jun 2016 11:10

Rohitvats-> in testing the Targets are Retired tanks with nothing running so to acquire them probably a reduced range is required.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2016 11:17

Aditya_V wrote:Rohitvats-> in testing the Targets are Retired tanks with nothing running so to acquire them probably a reduced range is required.

The above assertion does not hold. Simply because the tests are an evaluation to see how the missile/weapon will perform in actual combat. The requirement to acquire tank in the above mentioned condition would be replication of actual combat need. And not some ideal test case scenario.

And the missile as per the report can do this at 3.2 km and not 4 km; and hence, the request for range relaxation. The same missile may well do excellently in case of a winter war on western border even at 4 km range!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Jun 2016 11:25

But see what DRDO person said.

[quote][/quoteBut if the tank is left for hours in summer (sun), that is what we did during the recent trial, the temperature difference between the tank and the environment is negligible and that is the time we cannot meet the targeted four km range," he said.

I guess there was no engine running in this Test scenario.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2016 11:32

Aditya_V wrote:But see what DRDO person said.

[/quoteBut if the tank is left for hours in summer (sun), that is what we did during the recent trial, the temperature difference between the tank and the environment is negligible and that is the time we cannot meet the targeted four km range," he said.

I guess there was no engine running in this Test scenario.

Well, just think of an enemy tank in defensive position behind a bund or otherwise in a hull down position.

http://media.stripes.com/i/gulfwar/img/ ... hoto32.jpg

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 24 Jun 2016 15:06

The question is how many foreign missiles can do what IA asked for.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 24 Jun 2016 16:59

Not even one.
Even today there will be no missile that can do what Nag can do.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 24 Jun 2016 19:32

In a burning heat of mid summer desert, after the enemy tank has been baked in for many hours, why use an IIR seeker missile? Why not CCD(daytime TV) seeker which is 1/100th the cost? Namica can be configured to carry 4 IIR and 2 CCD missiles on long range missions.

Incidentally, if Nag cannot lock on such enemy tanks in hot summer then how will the Crew detect them in the first place?

If the enemy tank is not even on APU and is fully idle and baked in for many hours in summer heat then how is it a threat? How is the enemy crew surviving?

Namica will never be alone, it will be accompanied with T-90s/ATGM teams, so what such T-90s/ATGMs would be doing in such a situation?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 24 Jun 2016 22:30

The inability of the IIR seeker to detect a hot tank against a hot background at 4 Km is not new. That's the reason for Sofradir. It looks like even that is not upto scratch. Which means that the specs are probably unobtanium.

This is not some "new revelation". The only "new" part was that Christopher spelled out what the problem is, in a little more detail than before.

Nag has gone & continues to go the Arjun way.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Jun 2016 00:01

There was a detailed report in Janes about development and acceptance of Thales SIRIUS LR IRST and APAR radar. Thales official mentioned various parameters they tested and how hard it was to detect a F-16 flying too close to surface at a certain distance. And while these issues were still being worked upon, both systems were getting commissioned on HNLMS Tromp, Netherlands navy. That was way back in 2000.

Now coming to NAG, we could have placed a batch order of couple of hundred articles to sort out initial induction/production issues while kept on working NAG V2 or 3 or 4 etc with different seeks to compensate such issues. Instead vehicle itself kept on going through multiple iteration, missile went through multiple iteration and then there were reports about higher missile cost due to imported seeker etc etc.

Why reduced range of 3.2 KM between 11AM-3PM not acceptable, I think it was reported several time before too (not the exact details ofcourse)? How many other ATGMs are out there which can do this even at 2KM in given conditions?

Why all Indian products have to pass "Kobayashi Maru" simulation?

P.S. on the side note why DRDO had to release such precise range and weapon handicap in public domain.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2016 04:51

Sid wrote: P.S. on the side note why DRDO had to release such precise range and weapon handicap in public domain.

India is competing against brochures and the public, media and even unconnected but interested observers in the armed forces are affected by brochuritis. It may be a good idea to release honest specs and later tear down brochure claims. Even armed forces people have a way of unofficially spreading snide remarks where they look at a brochure and then say that they heard Nag missed a target at 2 km.

How often over the years on BRF have we discussed with starry eyes claims of BVRAAMs that kill at 80-100 km - and only the passage of reveals that this happens only if a target is approaching the missile launch vehicle and is not manoeuvring. In case the target is retreating rapidly the actual kill distance drops to 20 km and as many pages of discussion showed many BVR kills ended up being less than 20 km. And you may have see the sort of vehement argument there was even to those facts.

So typically Indians will immediately point to glossy brochures and say "7 km range of imported antitank missile" versus 3.2 of Indian missile - where the 7 km missile will have been tested on a (normal) cold day in Europe just like Agusta Westland VIP helicopter was tested in UK for Indian conditions.

There is, IMO a physical limit to target differentiation on the ground in really hot conditions. The metal of a tank surface may get as hot as 60-70 deg C and the shimmering refraction from hot air near the ground (which causes mirages) will add to target masking. Basically a tank sitting with its engine turned off will be indistinguishable from the surrounding area on a 50 deg C desert day in Rajasthan.

There is also a huge gap in the understanding of science between the scientist/engineer and the user and I think this gap is bigger in India than in the west because of lower education standards. I have myself seen trained nurses trying to speed up the warming of a cold bag of blood before transfusion by covering the bag with a blanket, not understanding that covering a cold object with a blanket will only prolong the time it takes to reach the temperature of the surrounding air. I suspect that a fair percentage of BRFites will not know exactly what I am talking about here, but I am not asking anyone to 'fess up. Unless senior officers are equally adept at understanding science concepts there is going to be a huge difference between the man who understand brochures and the man who understands science.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Jun 2016 06:26

rohitvats wrote:
By chance, now and then we come across information which tells you the genuine reason(s) behind delay in certain program. Which otherwise as per under-patriots on BRF is running just fine and but for the shenanigans of evil-foreign maal pasand armed forces (Read IA and IAF), should've been inducted for thousands as of yesterday.

What if the same request had been made earlier and relaxation obtained?

BTW - the observation about tank temperature being close to environment temperature tells you a lot about the working condition of armored corps and mechanized infantry chaps.

I disagree with this post.

If the hot dusty conditions of Bharat aren't there in most of this kind of missile developer nations. Maybe barring israel. A swedish private company brochure would have succeded to hit at 7 kms in the best possible conditions for the missile and advertised it all over.

Govt. owned DRDO won't do that.

In fact even if they do media will immediately pooh pooh on lines of "....an army officer requesting not to be named told our bitchypimpishchannel that actual range of seeker in deserts of thar may be on the lower side of 2 kilometers.."

It should be from army's side that "...ok defence minister jee give us nag in 5000 numbers with 3.2 km seeker range.... we will place next order of 49000 after the missile touches 4 km"

No they will continue with no missile for another 9 years, but won't place order for nag. Like airforce won't take Tejas as it is now and replace 500 mig 21s and 27s. But will immediately take failed mrca grippen and f-16 in a quick C-17 kind of deal. They are ready to work with a deeply faulted jaguar timidly, but reject Marut 'cause it doesn't fire all 6 guns at once. Their intentions become clear that the next jet they buy from foreign lands doesn't fire 6 guns at once.

There may be some situations where firing nag at enemy tank from 4 km may be dangerous, but there may be some situation where firing from 2.5 kilometer will be less dangerous.

The fact is there is rot and tejinder guy walking into General Shri V.K. Singh's office offering bribe is an evidence of that. While defence minister merely hits hand on his forehead at being told.

I have no gurez in saying that corrupt congi cabal + their arms dealer shark parteners have engineered such a dgmf cadre.

I have written to Defence minister that every product developed indigenously should just be tested buy randomly picking up various soldiers and officers from different places, brought in for testing with developing scientists and video graphed then before they get connected by any other sources their opinions of product written signed and filed video graphed.

So that nobody from upstairs can put any pressure.

Lets say even if israeli missile can hit that tank at 4.5 km but comes at double triple the cost, then 6 times more cost added for fake ToT would be worth it.

I remember reading somewhere few years back that M777 had failed army tests. But never again I remember reading anywhere it being tested again and passing. I won't believe it if someone says that bae has already improved the product at the input of Bharatiya Sena's tests. But it will be bought and no media will ever publish a single unnamed officer complaining about it.

Having gone through sanctions, lack of spares supply still armed forces prefer foreign maal.

But sadly they proudly do jugaad and make do with foreign product like jaguars but won't do the same with our own.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jun 2016 10:03

Manu Pubby ‏@manupubby_ET · 10m10 minutes ago

First demonstration flight with air launched version of Brahmos on Su 30 MKI successful today. Kudos.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jun 2016 10:06

Manu Pubby ‏@manupubby_ET · 8m8 minutes ago

"Su-30-BRAHMOS combination will carry out air combat operations within and beyond visibility range" - Brahmos.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 25 Jun 2016 10:18

Ajit Kumar Dubey ‏@ajitkdubey