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.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 26 Dec 2016 21:27

Karan M wrote:
sum wrote:So its marketed as a pure- Israeli product?


A purely political program foisted on DRDO by "Bundle" of the AF and UPA fraands with Akash induction reduced to 2 squadrons as an incentive.
If the Israelis replaced the local C4I and TEL, then its a good tribute to our yehudi fraands.

Why it's purely political program currently Navy or AF have a medium/Long range SAM that meets their requirements. Only other option is spending a lot of money to import more S300 or Patriot Pac2.

Long range missile based on AAD is unlikely to see daylight any time before 2025 and AAD itself look to be in trouble.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2016 21:47

Even Barak-8 did not meet IN requirements fully, it too was a controversial decision at the time. Won't speak more on it. Thereafter the IN, DRDO worked hard to get it into shape, but the Israelis themselves focused on their own programs first. That too was a factor which wont show up in any weblink.

As regards AAD you are mistaken, it has done exactly what it was meant to, and second it and many other programs had resources moved from them to the LRSAM/MRSAM which talk apart, have had no clear details to show for the investment India put in them in terms of actual technology transfer. Which is the fundamental issue about this & several other "JVs" which were proposed. The issue is not of adapting an AAD to the Barak-8 role, its more about how the MRSAM was conceived and pushed through, and what other alternatives were possible, with various carrots and sticks which had little to do with operational needs alone.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 26 Dec 2016 22:18

shiv wrote:
prasannasimha wrote:Is the battery thing for real (previous launches were textbook perfect or could it have been a MIRV test. People must be guessing!

OT but can I ask you a question? When you make a post the title of the thread that is displayed above changes to "prasannasimha". How does that ohappen? In fact I have manually changed it to Re: prasannasimha how does this occur?. Do you actually type in your name in place of the thread titile?

I really don't know and did not notice it till you brought it to my attention. I just hit reply and the rest just happens!

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 26 Dec 2016 22:23

The gas generator method is a well described Russian method. See the SS18 Satan launches they are exactly the same. I had posted the methodology some yearsvback during onebof the Agni 5 launches. The pressure in the canister base is nearly 400 tons!

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby krishna_krishna » 26 Dec 2016 22:23

From H K Rout twitter, Agni IV user trial scheduled on Jan 2.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JayS » 26 Dec 2016 22:33

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: One can see flame coming out just when the missile clears the tube but before its thruster is started.

Somehow I thought that jet blast was an explosive charge to knock out a cap under the main thruster of Agni. The blast goes left and a largie piece of debris goes right. But I must view the video again

That aside - a pressure of 1.5 atm as the Agni clears the top would require 75 cu meters of gas (I think) and that volume would have generated 20 atmospheres when the Agni was down in the canister with 13 times smaller volume - i,e about 6 cu meters below the missile - or 2 meters up from the bottom? For a pressure of 20 atm as it clears the top the total volume of gas would have to be 50 cu m x 20 = 1000 cubic meters,

I really don;t know what is used for gas generation. I do not see a huge flame emerging from the canister

Wrong! Plenty of gas there


I would say they used same or similar type of solid propellent that is used typically in solid rockets. I did some quick googling but am wary of digging more. This should give you a good starting point and you can dig into other cited patents for more info.

http://www.google.co.in/patents/US4798142

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52569
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2016 23:05

It would be slower burning formulation for gas generator. It's hot has ejection. So add temperature component to the gas energy.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52569
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2016 23:06

Agni IV is Agni II updated which is Agni TDS.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52569
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2016 23:07

GOI should release splash down as development trials are complete.

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6932
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby IndraD » 26 Dec 2016 23:57

ramana wrote:It would be slower burning formulation for gas generator. It's hot has ejection. So add temperature component to the gas energy.

A naive pooch as I have 0 understanding of missiles : Cheena experts in past have cast aspersion on capabilities of Agni V yet in 2012 said it can cover 70% of Europe: what is striking capability of this missile, Is Beijing within easy reach? Can it be destroyed in path?

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby krishna_krishna » 27 Dec 2016 00:36

^^ I thought Agni IV was Agni II Plus, which included special features (very good IMHO). Ramana guru what is TDS ?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 27 Dec 2016 01:24

Karan M wrote:
sum wrote:So its marketed as a pure- Israeli product?


A purely political program foisted on DRDO by "Bundle" of the AF and UPA fraands with Akash induction reduced to 2 squadrons as an incentive.
If the Israelis replaced the local C4I and TEL, then its a good tribute to our yehudi fraands.


What about the 2-pulse motor and some other bits that the DRDO is supposed to have developed for the Barak-8? Or do the Israelis have their own version of the motor and have 0% reliance on us.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 27 Dec 2016 01:30

In an ideal world, yes. The TEL design including C4I there and the C4I trailer, the radar generator is all desi. But we don't know yet whether the one sold to Azerbaijan has it. Same as Brahmos is not equal to Yakhont, despite dumb yindoos paying for all the finetuning of everything on the system.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Lisa » 27 Dec 2016 02:46

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: One can see flame coming out just when the missile clears the tube but before its thruster is started.

Somehow I thought that jet blast was an explosive charge to knock out a cap under the main thruster of Agni. The blast goes left and a largie piece of debris goes right. But I must view the video again

That aside - a pressure of 1.5 atm as the Agni clears the top would require 75 cu meters of gas (I think) and that volume would have generated 20 atmospheres when the Agni was down in the canister with 13 times smaller volume - i,e about 6 cu meters below the missile - or 2 meters up from the bottom? For a pressure of 20 atm as it clears the top the total volume of gas would have to be 50 cu m x 20 = 1000 cubic meters,

I really don;t know what is used for gas generation. I do not see a huge flame emerging from the canister

Wrong! Plenty of gas there


I think in this launch you can actually hear the gas build up and final release (Russian launch),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjWzhYju2es

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 27 Dec 2016 02:49

1P must have been in the works since 2P success. 3P or not to 3P is the question.

My mistake: Agni 3P was already quietly done. I forgot about what Tessy Thomas had said:
Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.

“It saw several technological enhancements and we had to redesign the entire system, use maraging steel and composite motor rocket,” she said.


So 3P has already been operationalized.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 27 Dec 2016 02:58

With fourth successful test, Agni-5 to join missile arsenal

By Ajai Shukla
DRDO Missile Complex, Hyderabad
Business Standard, 26th Dec 16

... <Introduction for newbies> ....

To understand the ultra-modern Agni-5, Business Standard visited the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) in Hyderabad, the DRDO facility that has designed, developed and built all India’s Prithvi and Agni ballistic missiles.

... <other stuff for newbies> ....

The launch starts with the “boost phase”, when the missile is propelled into space. A powerful gas generation system in the canister rapidly builds up 300 tonnes of pressure, popping the missile out, like a bullet. In less than half a second, when the missile is 10-15 metres above the canister, the first stage ignites, accelerating the missile upwards. Within 30 seconds, it goes supersonic and, within 90 seconds, when the first stage burns out, the Agni-5 is hurtling upwards at one-and-a-half kilometres each second.

... <other stuff for newbies> ....

While the Agni-5’s first stage is built from conventional “maraging steel”, the second and third stages are built from lightweight, new-age composite materials. The second stage, which burns for 80 seconds, takes the missile 170 kilometres above earth; and the third stage, which separates after a minute, carries the payload up to 260 kilometres.
... <other stuff for newbies> ....

Ten minutes after launch, it reaches the top of its parabolic path, about 580 kilometres above earth. Then gravity begins pulling it down towards the impact point.

Deep in space here, with no atmosphere to allow aerodynamic steering with fins, course correction is done with small “side-thruster rockets”, to correct any errors that crept in during the launch.

By the time the payload reaches the upper edge of the atmosphere, it is hurtling downwards at about 5-6 kilometres per second. This is the most technologically challenging part of the launch --- the re-entry stage.

As the missile comes in contact with the atmosphere, friction heats its outer surface to 4,000 degrees Centigrade, while the payload inside (in wartime, a 200 KiloTonne nuclear bomb) must be maintained at 50 degrees Centigrade. This is done by building the re-entry vehicle from a thick block of carbon composite material, compressing it with pressures of up to 1,000 atmospheres.

... <other stuff for newbies> ....

At the target end, in the stretch of ocean between the southern tips of Africa and Australia, radar-equipped naval warships are pre-positioned to monitor where the missile strikes. There is no scope for error beyond a few hundred metres (IR: the QR mandates 40-100 mtrs. Agni 4 onwards they have achieved single digit errors).

... <other stuff for newbies> ....

Manufacturing the Agni-4 and Agni-5 at full-scale production rates will include more than 200 private sector industries, many of which have played roles in developing the missiles. The DRDO itself manufactures key components, like rocket motors; but even for those, private firms build components like casings and nozzles. As they gain experience, a band of low profile, high-tech private firms, like Sigma Micro Systems, VEM Technologies, and Resin Allied and Products (RAP) are emerging as players in the missile field.

(Part 2: “India’s next generation ICBM --- the Agni-6”)


Anant
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Anant » 27 Dec 2016 04:46

TDS = technology demonstration simulator. I.e. Not the last iteration of a weapon but something that peripherally resembles it and functions as intended but could be tweaked or dumped in entirety.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ldev » 27 Dec 2016 05:13

From Ajai Shukla:

With fourth successful test, Agni-5 to join missile arsenal

The launch starts with the “boost phase”, when the missile is propelled into space. A powerful gas generation system in the canister rapidly builds up 300 tonnes of pressure, popping the missile out, like a bullet. In less than half a second, when the missile is 10-15 metres above the canister, the first stage ignites, accelerating the missile upwards. Within 30 seconds, it goes supersonic and, within 90 seconds, when the first stage burns out, the Agni-5 is hurtling upwards at one-and-a-half kilometres each second.


By the time the payload reaches the upper edge of the atmosphere, it is hurtling downwards at about 5-6 kilometres per second. This is the most technologically challenging part of the launch --- the re-entry stage.

As the missile comes in contact with the atmosphere, friction heats its outer surface to 4,000 degrees Centigrade, while the payload inside (in wartime, a 200 KiloTonne nuclear bomb) must be maintained at 50 degrees Centigrade. This is done by building the re-entry vehicle from a thick block of carbon composite material, compressing it with pressures of up to 1,000 atmospheres.

“A diamond is created when 10,000 atmospheres of pressure are exerted on carbon. So we are effectively creating one-tenth of a diamond”, quips one of the scientists.


At the target end, in the stretch of ocean between the southern tips of Africa and Australia, radar-equipped naval warships are pre-positioned to monitor where the missile strikes. There is no scope for error beyond a few hundred metres.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 27 Dec 2016 07:39

The DRDO tender called for 400 tons pressure build up in simulation studies

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2016 08:25

300 tons pressure = 300,000 kg spread over 3 sq meters - 100,000 kg/sq m = 10 kg/sq cm - about 10 atmospheres

Force is about 3 million Newtons, mass = 50,000 kg Acceleration should be 3mill/50000 = 60 meters per sec/sec

That would make the missile clear the canister in less than 1 second

300-400 tons pressure sounds OK.

But what actually generates this gas? What is the propellant? What is the gas generated. Need to ask Googal I guess

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Rishi Verma » 27 Dec 2016 08:57

^^ then the Bakis have a real advantage as they have unlimited supply of pindi-chana gas.

Most ddm articles mis-report that A5 missile carries a 1.5T warhead up-to 5000km.

The missile only carries it half-way, to the peak of ballistic orbit, then the free-fall is "free" i.e. unpowered, more like the warhead carries the final stage of mijjile due to momentum.

The maneuvering is also done for "free" before hitting QingDao.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23572
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby SSridhar » 27 Dec 2016 10:14

The figure given during the canister testing with dummy missiles was 370 tonnes.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 27 Dec 2016 10:17

The "gas" generated is by what is labeled as a black powder charge mortar. Basically a low yield explosive hat foes nit damage the canister. This generates the pressurization. The other thing is the vessel must pop off without hitting the sides of the canister. This is done either by side explosive charges or airbags.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 27 Dec 2016 10:18

PS whatever I do the heading continues to be changed!

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: prasannasimha

Postby Marten » 27 Dec 2016 11:26

prasannasimha wrote:PS whatever I do the heading continues to be changed!

Sir, it is your browser auto-complete. Before posting, please check the Subject and copy+paste just once the correct title. imho, the auto-complete behaviour stops after that.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby LokeshC » 27 Dec 2016 11:35

shiv wrote:300 tons pressure = 300,000 kg spread over 3 sq meters - 100,000 kg/sq m = 10 kg/sq cm - about 10 atmospheres

Force is about 3 million Newtons, mass = 50,000 kg Acceleration should be 3mill/50000 = 60 meters per sec/sec

That would make the missile clear the canister in less than 1 second

300-400 tons pressure sounds OK.

But what actually generates this gas? What is the propellant? What is the gas generated. Need to ask Googal I guess


A gas generator is a dumbed down explosion, usually the entire process will be subsonic and one of the outcome of the process (usually chemical) is a lot of gas created under high pressure and (somewhat) high temperature.

Explosion of the same energy would have a smaller amount of gas released but is usually supersonic.

So an explosion would be an immense force acting for a really short time (fragmenting everything in its wake), while a gas generator would be a slow motion version of that, a smaller force acting for a longer time.

Any chemical process that generates a lot of gas by combining two solids/liquids is a "gas generator".

HCL + NH3 (Hydrochloric acid plus ammonia) is one thing I still recall from my inorganic chem days. The fumes in the lab we tried it in (just one station as a demo filled the whole lab) was insane, the instructor should have been fired.

Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Ashokk » 27 Dec 2016 12:20

Kanchanbagh is address for India's Agni V might
Though defence officials would want to stick to the 5,000 km range, sources said the inter-continental ballistic missile can be 'tweaked' to 'go for the kill' anywhere between 8,000 to 10,000 km range.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2706
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 27 Dec 2016 12:45

abhik wrote:What about the 2-pulse motor and some other bits that the DRDO is supposed to have developed for the Barak-8? Or do the Israelis have their own version of the motor and have 0% reliance on us.

sum wrote:
"Barak-8" was developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), in partnership with Elta Systems, Rafael and other companies.
So its marketed as a pure- Israeli product?

Karan M wrote:In an ideal world, yes. The TEL design including C4I there and the C4I trailer, the radar generator is all desi. But we don't know yet whether the one sold to Azerbaijan has it. Same as Brahmos is not equal to Yakhont, despite dumb yindoos paying for all the finetuning of everything on the system.


Joint Development can have
1. Inclusion of end user's specific requirements, like PAF's requirement for JF-17 or Indian requirements for Su-30MKI & Barak-8
2. Inclusion of end user specified third part equipment - like Israeli and French avionics for Su-30 MKI or CAe MAD for P-8I
3. Inclusion of end user developed equipment - like Indian SCAN seeker for BrahMos or dual pulse motor for Barak-8

None of it stops Russia or Israel or France from developing & selling Su-30SM, MiG-29K or Yakhont to Vietnam & Indonesia. Infact the French upgrade for its Mirage 2000 uses what was developed for IAF

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16727/ ... AF_Mirages
French Air Force Mirage 2000 Upgrade Nearly Similar To That Of IAF Mirages


Until the time critical technologies are developed, we need to go for JVs.

Karan M wrote:A purely political program foisted on DRDO by "Bundle" of the AF and UPA fraands with Akash induction reduced to 2 squadrons as an incentive.

John wrote:Why it's purely political program currently Navy or AF have a medium/Long range SAM that meets their requirements. Only other option is spending a lot of money to import more S300 or Patriot Pac2. Long range missile based on AAD is unlikely to see daylight any time before 2025 and AAD itself look to be in trouble.

Karan M wrote:Even Barak-8 did not meet IN requirements fully, it too was a controversial decision at the time. Won't speak more on it. Thereafter the IN, DRDO worked hard to get it into shape, but the Israelis themselves focused on their own programs first. That too was a factor which wont show up in any weblink.As regards AAD you are mistaken, it has done exactly what it was meant to, and second it and many other programs had resources moved from them to the LRSAM/MRSAM which talk apart, have had no clear details to show for the investment India put in them in terms of actual technology transfer. Which is the fundamental issue about this & several other "JVs" which were proposed. The issue is not of adapting an AAD to the Barak-8 role, its more about how the MRSAM was conceived and pushed through, and what other alternatives were possible, with various carrots and sticks which had little to do with operational needs alone.


Barak-8 and AAD ARE DESIGNED FOR VERY DIFFERENT & NON-INTERCHANGEABLE PURPOSES.

AAD is a high speed skid-to-turn missile designed to target short & intermediate range ballistic missiles like Hatf-1/2/3, M-9, M-11, Ghauri, Shaheen etc. Because its design is highly optimised for ballistic missile interception, it is not capable of intercepting highly maneuverable aircraft with a high degree of authority provided by control surfaces.

For targeting such aircraft, one needs a bank-to-turn missile with a greater number of control surfaces.

For example,

AAD has TVC, 4 moveable tailfins and wings

Image

Barak-8 has TVC, 4 moveable tailfins and 4 moveable canards that impact greater turn capability to intercept highly maneuverable aircraft

Image

We need both.

Now coming to allegations of political conspiracy.

LRSAM was signed when George Fernandes was Defence Minister and A P J Abdul Kalam was Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Head of DRDO.

LRSAM was required because the then existent long range missiles were heavy (Russian Rif, US Standard & French Aster) and IN wanted something lighter for its destroyers that have less displacement than US, Russian, UK & French destroyers.

Because nothing meeting our requirements existed, and the Israelis wanted something similar for their Sa’ar 5 corvettes, we went in for joint development.

When BJP signed LRSAM in 2000, Congress alleged there was corruption. When Congress signed MRSAM in 2006, BJP alleged there was corruption

Here is a DRDO interview stating why LRSAM/MRSAM is required.

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/i ... y/442501/0

Left, BJP have alleged corruption in the $1.665 bn contract for medium-range surface-to-air missiles that the Defence Research & Development Organisation signed with Israel Aircraft Industries on February 27. Defence Minister A K Antony told DRDO to answer questions raised by the Opposition. Shishir Gupta explains:

•Why are the missiles needed?

DRDO-IAI joint venture will develop and equip Indian Air Force (IAF) with 18 combat management systems with 435 MRSAMs. Missiles will replace obsolete PECHORA missile systems. In December 2008, DRDO chief M Natarajan informed Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that the nation's air defence was under threat: IAF had reported that 17 out of 60 firing units of PECHORA had already been phased out.

•What do Left and BJP say?

The Left, traditionally opposed to defence ties with Tel Aviv, wants the deal scrapped because IAI is under CBI scrutiny in the Barak missile deal. It also wants the Government to explain why 6% of the contract sum is being paid as business expenses to IAI. The BJP says the deal reeks of middlemen, and will scrap it if it comes to power.

•What is the background of the deal?

Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the Ministry of Defence took the decision to develop MRSAM with Israeli collaboration on June 19, 2006. On January 4, 2007, the Defence Minister approved the Price Negotiation Committee headed by DRDO's VK Saraswat and IAI's Itzhak Nissan. On December 16, 2008, CCS cleared the deal. DRDO told CCS that MRSAM was the land derivative of an ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile project with Israel for the Navy. DRDO conceded that Akash, the indigenous missile system in development since 1984, had been a sub-optimal performer, following which it was decided that IAF would purchase only two squadrons, to be deployed in less-than-strategic airfields.

•What questions did Antony ask?

What DRDO did not explain was why it needed to develop a missile with a 70-km range with Israel when American (Standard Missile MK IV), French (Aster 15/30) and Russian (RIF) missile systems with longer ranges (up to 240 miles) and proven performance were already in service. A stickler for transparency, Antony asked DRDO to address the concerns expressed by opposition parties.

•India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class: the advance air defence (AAD) missile, which is part of India's anti-ballistic missile shield.

DRDO: MRSAM is four times more manoeuvrable than AAD. AAD performs sub-optimally while engaging aircraft in tail-chase mode, reducing the air defence engagement envelope.

•The deal could mean the death of the Akash missile system.

DRDO: MRSAM can engage targets 70 km away; Akash has a range of just 25 km. Deputy Chief of Air Staff has stated that PECHORA is obsolete and IAF needs a replacement urgently.

•No open tendering process was followed.

DRDO: Decisions on acquiring weapons systems are made by DAC. IAF had, after evaluating the ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) project, concluded the missile met operational requirements for an MRSAM system as well. IAF proposed a joint development programme between DRDO and IAI to move quickly on an urgent need. DAC approved "make" decision and thus, no tenders were floated.

•Missile seeker technology has not been transferred.

DRDO: Significant share of work in seeker technology has been awarded to Indian industry. For more than 80% of missiles, seeker sub-assemblies will be manufactured, assembled, tested in India with complete production drawings and assembly/test procedures.
tsarkar wrote:The BDL manufacturing factory is Ibrahimpatnam near Hyderabad has started work


•Six per cent business charges are being paid.

DRDO: Business expenses are costs towards warranty, bank guarantees, financing, insurance, transportation etc. These are included in the cost of the product. The 6% figure was not mentioned in IAI quote and is not in the contract. It was mentioned only in the report of the price negotiation committee, which brought it down from 13%, to demonstrate its approach in arriving at the reasonability of the negotiated price.

•Bribes were paid as part of business expenses.

DRDO: Not true. IAI signed an integrity pact before price negotiations began. Final contract (article 30.1) is very stringent about integrity. Contract can be scrapped in case of an irregularity.

•Contract was not examined from the legal angle.

DRDO: CBI has filed FIRs in connection with deals for Barak and 200 missiles with IAI and Rafael of Israel, but is yet to submit charge-sheet. Additional Solicitor General had opined it would be appropriate to wait for the charge-sheet before deciding to bar the firms. The Law Ministry felt an embargo only on the basis of an FIR may not be justified, and asked The Defence Ministry to first assess urgency of the national security need. Central Vigilance Commission felt results from CBI's probe lent credibility to allegations of involvement of middlemen, but asked the Defence Ministry to make the final decision after consulting the Law Ministry.

The Law Minister said the decision should be made at the highest levels. The entire matter was referred to Air Headquarters, which, with concurrence of the Air Chief, reiterated the immediate need to induct LLQRM (low level radars from Rafael), MRSAM and additional Aerostat radars. It was only due to this urgency, strategic implications of delay, IAI's integrity commitment, and the ASG's view, that CCS cleared the MRSAM project.


From the same report is the following graphic explaining the difference between the three missiles. It is self explanatory. Coming from DRDO, it has internal layouts of all missiles, including the only publicly released layout of AAD

Image

And there is no information that Barak-8/LRSAM/MRSAM has not met requirements. It will fit 4 Project 15B and 7 Project 17A ships in future.

Nor is there any information that AAD has not met requirements. It too is in the process of completing development.

Lastly, I would very humbly request for some maturity and honesty in this forum.

If Product A is good, then to prove its good, one doesnt have to disparage Product B. Both can be equally good on their own merits.

<POOF>
Last edited by hnair on 27 Dec 2016 13:20, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Why? Deleted unwarranted troll-bait. Please co-operate! You are a senior poster whose posts are informative. I see that you have been warned and banned for this before

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JayS » 27 Dec 2016 14:26

ramana wrote:It would be slower burning formulation for gas generator. It's hot has ejection. So add temperature component to the gas energy.

Why slow burning?? I would think one chooses as fast burning as possible to quickly build up pressure and eject the missile out.


Two references I found for DRDO's canister launch Gas Generators. Agni-V might be using something else though.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... ulsion.htm

Solid propellant hot gas generator is used to launch a missile from canister. DRDO has designed and developed a solid propellant hot gas generator which produces highly progressive mass flow rate. To achieve this, high burn rate (r75 = 30 mm/s) non-metalised inhibited composite propellant based on HTPB has been developed. Motor is designed to operate on a pressure range of 15 to 200 kg/cm2 with factor of safety of 2 to increase the reliability. Casing, head-end dish and deflector have been machined out from closed die forging.

So far, thirty full-scale proof gas generator tests have been successfully conducted and fifteen flight version gas generators have been static tested. Two force simulated missile launches conducted using this system met the mission requirements of missile exit velocity and maximum canister pressure.


http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 12_WEB.pdf
COMBO Gas Generator
COMBO gas generator
(GG), combination
of gas generator and
underwater booster,
is used in underwater
canister launched missile
for ejection of missile out
of canister and also to
provide thrust to carry
missile outside the water surface. COMBO GG is multiperforated,
cast in composite sleeve grain with150 kg
of composite propellant, first of its kind in India. COMBO
GG requires of low-aluminised propellant. DRDO has
successfully developed a propellant formulation for
realizing COMBO GG. The propellant formulation
is based on ultrafine ammonium perchlorate, solid
burning rate catalysts and spherical aluminum
powder.

.
.
.
COMBO GG has been successful flight
tested in pop-up trial of underwater missile system.


PS: The first one seems to be used for Shourya and the other one for K4/K15.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2016 17:10

JayS wrote: DRDO has
successfully developed a propellant formulation for
realizing COMBO GG.[b] The propellant formulation
is based on ultrafine ammonium perchlorate, solid
burning rate catalysts and spherical aluminum
powder.

Ah this is what I was looking for. It is standard Diwali stuff.. almost..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2016 17:22

Lisa wrote:I think in this launch you can actually hear the gas build up and final release (Russian launch),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjWzhYju2es

Very interesting. It sounded like gas was built up initially and then the missile was released from restriction by explosive charges blowing the bolts

Checking (on Wiki) shows that in the case of the Topol it is not a chemical gas generator bu compressed Nitrogen gas

kurup
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 14:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kurup » 27 Dec 2016 19:08

Austin wrote:Barak-8 is certainly designed and developed by IAI , The DRDO-IAI JV provided DRDO an opportunity to add Indian components to it which make its good from indiginous pov for us but we dont hold any veto of Barak-8 program or its sale , its JV thats good for both partners , that pretty much applies to any JV program , Maitri , Brahmos , FGFA etc


How is that possible ...... propulsion system is Indian ... right ???

kurup
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 14:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kurup » 27 Dec 2016 19:10

Karan M wrote:In an ideal world, yes. The TEL design including C4I there and the C4I trailer, the radar generator is all desi. But we don't know yet whether the one sold to Azerbaijan has it. Same as Brahmos is not equal to Yakhont, despite dumb yindoos paying for all the finetuning of everything on the system.


The canister , canister assembly and launch mechanism does not look like Indian .

kurup
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 14:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kurup » 27 Dec 2016 19:14

tsarkar wrote:
abhik wrote:What about the 2-pulse motor and some other bits that the DRDO is supposed to have developed for the Barak-8? Or do the Israelis have their own version of the motor and have 0% reliance on us.

sum wrote:So its marketed as a pure- Israeli product?

Karan M wrote:In an ideal world, yes. The TEL design including C4I there and the C4I trailer, the radar generator is all desi. But we don't know yet whether the one sold to Azerbaijan has it. Same as Brahmos is not equal to Yakhont, despite dumb yindoos paying for all the finetuning of everything on the system.


Joint Development can have
1. Inclusion of end user's specific requirements, like PAF's requirement for JF-17 or Indian requirements for Su-30MKI & Barak-8
2. Inclusion of end user specified third part equipment - like Israeli and French avionics for Su-30 MKI or CAe MAD for P-8I
3. Inclusion of end user developed equipment - like Indian SCAN seeker for BrahMos or dual pulse motor for Barak-8

None of it stops Russia or Israel or France from developing & selling Su-30SM, MiG-29K or Yakhont to Vietnam & Indonesia. Infact the French upgrade for its Mirage 2000 uses what was developed for IAF


But that still does not explain the source of Barak8 propulsion system sold to Azerbaijan .

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2706
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 27 Dec 2016 20:06

kurup wrote:But that still does not explain the source of Barak8 propulsion system sold to Azerbaijan .

As per my understanding, DRDO propulsion system goes into LRSAM/MRSAM built at BDL Hyderabad. Israeli propulsion system goes into Barak-8 for IDF, Azerbaijan & other customers. Just like Yakhont/Oniks sold to Indonesia.

Image
Image
Image
Image

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1055
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

prasannasimha

Postby prasannasimha » 27 Dec 2016 20:30

The rate of burn in a gas generator is slower than a hot launch but still pretty fast.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 27 Dec 2016 21:18

Reference the first part of the post noting Indian variants are different but others are sold, that's exactly the problem,. Our loosely drafted agreements allow us to finance such specific variants and we get little from them in terms of the commercial aspect or TOT. We do achieve critical capability, and operational goals but lose out the longer advantages.

Regards the second part, yes designed for different purposes and DRDO was asked to point that out by the MOD in parliament. They did. The same squeaky clean gent under whose watch AW happened as well, and a serving IN chief fell on his sword for batteries held up by the bureaucracy. Point is, it's not that AAD is the same purpose as Barak-8, as I pointed out to John already, they are different enough one cannot be used as the other. And adapting one to the others role can be done for specific roles only, as AAD for a loft trajectory anti CM role but not an ideal Anti AC one, though it can be used for long range AWCS.

The bigger issue is how certain programs get pushed through as long as they are JVs and unlike whats often reported, some from the operational side, have to make do. Let's be hopeful we continue to get some TOT.
Last edited by Karan M on 27 Dec 2016 21:31, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 27 Dec 2016 21:23

kurup wrote:
tsarkar wrote:


Joint Development can have
1. Inclusion of end user's specific requirements, like PAF's requirement for JF-17 or Indian requirements for Su-30MKI & Barak-8
2. Inclusion of end user specified third part equipment - like Israeli and French avionics for Su-30 MKI or CAe MAD for P-8I
3. Inclusion of end user developed equipment - like Indian SCAN seeker for BrahMos or dual pulse motor for Barak-8

None of it stops Russia or Israel or France from developing & selling Su-30SM, MiG-29K or Yakhont to Vietnam & Indonesia. Infact the French upgrade for its Mirage 2000 uses what was developed for IAF


But that still does not explain the source of Barak8 propulsion system sold to Azerbaijan .



We did our propulsion testing in Israel, good no? :wink:
I took a look at the video.

Interestingly enough, the C4I cabin radio relay links look different. Even the blast deflector composite panel on the MRSAM TEL is a different color than the brown one displayed by DRDO at Goa. Looks like the Israelis supplanted every item in the system. While we paid for the overall development and testing and fine tuning. Brahmos and Yakhont all over again.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 27 Dec 2016 21:27

Point of AAD and Barak-8 is that they are not the same and we don't have anything that can provide area air defense capability currently provided by Barak-8. Modifying AAD as a long range SAM is far away from fruition. The latter was mentioned by Saraswat in 2007 as next step after AAD is inducted but seems to have dropped off the radar since then.

Only option is import or wait another two decades to come thru the usual development process from DRDO. Either need to incentive the private companies to jump in that process or need to fix that process.

tsarkar wrote:
kurup wrote:But that still does not explain the source of Barak8 propulsion system sold to Azerbaijan .

As per my understanding, DRDO propulsion system goes into LRSAM/MRSAM built at BDL Hyderabad. Israeli propulsion system goes into Barak-8 for IDF, Azerbaijan & other customers. Just like Yakhont/Oniks sold to


Tsarkar just want to point Brahmos and Yakhont-Onyks are two different missiles marketed it by different companies in fact Yakhont beat out Brahmos in Vietnam (since latter was subsided by Russia and land based variant Bastion was further developed than Brahmos ). Russians were supposed to procure Brahmos but they have not done that either.
Last edited by John on 27 Dec 2016 21:35, edited 1 time in total.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3325
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rsingh » 27 Dec 2016 21:32

When ever you guys name" Azerbaijan" and Barak in same sentence, it makes me laugh. these guys are ***** who can hardly drive missile trucks . How they are able handle sophisticated system like Barak? I am sure they hired Russian technicians to open the boxes .
Last edited by ramana on 28 Dec 2016 01:01, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ramana


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests