Indian Missile Technology Discussion

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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby SaiK » 06 Aug 2008 17:54

IA will wait until nag smashes a moving tank at 45kmph in a cold fog filled winter morning at pokhran., to say anything to even start with some negatives., like it lacks 6-8km range, missing target tolerance, namica delivery multi target acquisition and locks [want all the 12 nags in it to "hit to kill" :mrgreen: ] 12 al khaleed look alike perhaps with a test jig made of kanchan armor.

Muns
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Muns » 06 Aug 2008 19:07

Rahul M wrote : Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.


What about the Mig 27's which are now undergoing upgrades as well? In any case if the report below is anything to go by, the IAF seems to think the Jags which recently are to undergo the Darin 3 upgrades will be able to do the job. Since the Mig 23's are being retired. The Jag IS/IM will be armed with the MMR Helina and have a range of 10kms.

Credits to ainspiron from keypub

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82331

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2008 19:41

Muns wrote:
Rahul M wrote : Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.


What about the Mig 27's which are now undergoing upgrades as well? In any case if the report below is anything to go by, the IAF seems to think the Jags which recently are to undergo the Darin 3 upgrades will be able to do the job. Since the Mig 23's are being retired. The Jag IS/IM will be armed with the MMR Helina and have a range of 10kms.

Credits to ainspiron from keypub

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82331

ya, I have seen that report. it is still prasun sengupta whose middle name is imagination !
will believe it when there are other reports.
personally, I think,
may be that will be done if the Helina lives upto its expectations.

in the helos, if I may add.
regards.

p.s. one thing that gets me immediately suspicious is the mention of jag IM. what would an IM
do with an anti-tank missile with the IN's threat perception, where mission definition of the maritime jags calls for destruction of enemy surface assets at 100s of kms, so as not to endanger the IN's fleet with harpoons/chinese AShCMs.

The best candidates would be the mig-27s and the mig-21s that are left. both can be deployed from rugged forward air fields and would be available in numbers. the jags, mirages and the sukhois would be reserved for strike/AS roles, IMHO.
but all these would have to wait for the MMW version, IMHO. also, I'm not too sure about the 10 km figure.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Baljeet » 06 Aug 2008 20:19

SaiK wrote:IA will wait until nag smashes a moving tank at 45kmph in a cold fog filled winter morning at pokhran., to say anything to even start with some negatives., like it lacks 6-8km range, missing target tolerance, namica delivery multi target acquisition and locks [want all the 12 nags in it to "hit to kill" :mrgreen: ] 12 al khaleed look alike perhaps with a test jig made of kanchan armor.


Saik
IA will say Nag does not have MMWR so it is below standard. IIR is old technology IA will not compromise on quality of weapons. :lol:
IA has to send officers to Europe and Russia to evaluate the latest and greatest weapons and of course "Natasha's or Natalies" :lol:

Muns
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Muns » 06 Aug 2008 20:40

p.s. one thing that gets me immediately suspicious is the mention of jag IM. what would an IM
do with an anti-tank missile with the IN's threat perception, where mission definition of the maritime jags calls for destruction of enemy surface assets at 100s of kms, so as not to endanger the IN's fleet with harpoons/chinese AShCMs.


My Typo mistake, the article doesn't have it. I meant to include the two seater versions being the new build jags, (17 of the 37 twin seaters) designated as IB, which should have the same capability to launch the Helina.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 06 Aug 2008 21:40

Two staged missile? Surely he means a Tandem warhead.


This piece took me by surprise too. A missile with a range of 4 km and two staged :shock: :shock:
I guess he meant dual thrust rocket motor.

Cheers....

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2008 21:42

Muns wrote:My Typo mistake, the article doesn't have it. I meant to include the two seater versions being the new build jags, (17 of the 37 twin seaters) designated as IB, which should have the same capability to launch the Helina.

the two seater jags will find much better uses than busting tanks on the thar ! :wink:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Katare » 06 Aug 2008 22:16

It seems MMW seeker has been dropped for now.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2008 22:19

Katare wrote:It seems MMW seeker has been dropped for now.

source ?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby putnanja » 07 Aug 2008 00:37

Nag test-fired again

Nag test-fired again

HYDERABAD: For the second day in a row, DRDO scientists successfully test-fired the third generation anti-tank missile, Nag, at Pokhran in Rajasthan. Moments after the launch around 10.15 a.m. on Wednesday, the rocket zeroed in on a “moving target” and shattered it to smithereens.

Launched from the dedicated missile carrier, Namica, the fire-and-forget missile hit the specially-designed target, which was moving on rails at an intermediate range of two km. It was successfully test-fired against a stationary target at the maximum range of four km on Tuesday.

Talking to The Hindu, P. Venugopalan, Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), said: “Hundred per cent objectives of the trial had been achieved”, marking the completion of the developmental tests. The Defence Research and Development Organisation and the user would together plan holding user-trials shortly. He hoped that Nag production would begin next year.

Project director S. S. Mishra said the moving target was specifically designed by the Army for the mission. The developmental trials established the ruggedness of the entire system to travel long distances in harsh terrain. The DRDO scientists plan to evaluate Namica’s “flotation performance” in water on Thursday. The carrier with eight missiles on-board would be tested to see whether it could move without sinking.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 07 Aug 2008 00:46

Photo Released Today: Nag ATGM Testfired (aroor's blog)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 769452.jpg

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2008 00:57

A photo of the decimated target would add volume to visual treat.. especially if the target is at least a box made of tank materials with double thickness.

The MMW is a future variant, and in development.. was never ment to be in the first nag variants.. perhaps, hellina? may carry it!? that is supposed to be the augmented 8km wala.

Any info on how fast the target object was moving? moving pattern? etc? perhaps classified. Good to know, since IA would be looking for these data.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 07 Aug 2008 01:02

SaiK wrote:A photo of the dessimated target would add volume to visual treat.. especially if the target is at least a box made of tank materials with double thickness.

did you actually see the photo ?
SaiK wrote:The MMW is a future variant, and in development.. was never ment to be in the first nag variants.. perhaps, hellina? may carry it!? that is supposed to be the augmented 8km wala.

MMW was thought of right from project definition stage because of its all weather capabilities, check wings of fire for example. was abandoned temporarily in mid 90's due to technical challenges involved.
SaiK wrote:Any info on how fast the target object was moving? moving pattern? etc? perhaps classified. Good to know, since IA would be looking for these data.

btw, these pics are from the stationary hit.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Katare » 07 Aug 2008 01:31

Rahul M wrote:
Katare wrote:It seems MMW seeker has been dropped for now.

source ?


seems

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2008 01:34

duh! my browser had some issues. sorry. awesome!.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 07 Aug 2008 02:32

How do you make the target move? Can you have a remote controlled tank? or one that is pulled by a rope?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Sid » 07 Aug 2008 03:42

p_saggu wrote:How do you make the target move? Can you have a remote controlled tank? or one that is pulled by a rope?


http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/07/stories ... 951400.htm
Launched from the dedicated missile carrier, Namica, the fire-and-forget missile hit the specially-designed target, which was moving on rails at an intermediate range of two km. It was successfully test-fired against a stationary target at the maximum range of four km on Tuesday.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9966
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sum » 07 Aug 2008 08:54

Photo Released Today: Nag ATGM Testfired (aroor's blog)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 769452.jpg

Isnt that a photoshop/animation of a painted(?) fireball on the pic of a BMP?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 07 Aug 2008 09:33

sum wrote:
Photo Released Today: Nag ATGM Testfired (aroor's blog)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 769452.jpg

Isnt that a photoshop/animation of a painted(?) fireball on the pic of a BMP?

I was thinking on same line.

b_karan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 27 Oct 2005 12:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby b_karan » 07 Aug 2008 09:48


sombhat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 21:59
Location: Kolkata

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sombhat » 07 Aug 2008 11:52

Both pics badly PSed. Dont know why.
First one looks like a Picasso, second one is straight out of Shaktiman!!!! :evil:
Maybe we will get a video on youtube later. Will keep an eye on that.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 07 Aug 2008 17:53

The missile is propelled by booster and sustainer motors, both of which are ignited simultaneously, using low smoke composite modified nitramine double-base propellant. The sustainer motor exhausts through four canted side-mounted venturis.


http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0747.html

So indeed Nag is a two staged missile. The side mounted venturis can be seen in the below pic just aft of forward black fins.
Image

But this video shows four streaks of light emanating from these four venturis just after launch which soon extinguish. So my question is which one is sustainer and which one is booster?

Cheers....

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby JTull » 07 Aug 2008 18:08

Rediff article is incorrect as it descibes 4 missiles being carried in ready-to-fire mode and 12 in storage. From the above picture it's clear that 8 cells are present read-to-fire.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby p_saggu » 07 Aug 2008 23:56

The side vents are needed because of the 2nd tandem warhead right at the back end of the missile.
Arun_S can further clarify, I think there is a fast burning fuel / motor which gets it into motion from 0 speed, then the sustainer motor kicks in.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby putnanja » 08 Aug 2008 02:27

Namica amphibious trial successful

Namica amphibious trial successful

HYDERABAD: Close on the heels of test-firing of the anti-tank Nag missile on stationary and moving targets, DRDO scientists successfully completed an “amphibious trial” of Namica, dedicated carrier of the weapon system, in the Indira Gandhi canal at Nachna in Rajasthan on Thursday.

“This was the first time that such a trial had been carried out,” Nag project director, S.S. Mishra told The Hindu. The carrier, weighing 14.5 tonnes, was in full combat load with eight missiles in the turret and it crossed the canal by demonstrating its “mobility in water.”

In a war scenario, Namica would be required to not only stay afloat but also negotiate and overcome obstacles while moving at seven km an hour, he said.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 08 Aug 2008 06:41

p_saggu wrote:The side vents are needed because of the 2nd tandem warhead right at the back end of the missile.
Arun_S can further clarify, I think there is a fast burning fuel / motor which gets it into motion from 0 speed, then the sustainer motor kicks in.

I am not sure myself. From my perspective the 4 side venturies are booster. The deflected venturies confign allows launching from close quarters without generating a huge jet flame that can endanger launch man/material; as well as provide much larger total rocket engine throat for that high initial thrust. The sustainer then takes over that is located in conventional aft section. Tandem charges IMHO is located ahead of the motor, mutually separated by battery & electronics compartment.

A short range missile like Nag is unlikely to have 2 separate stages. Albeit the same motor most likely has 2 fuel grains; one grain that is burning outside-in for the initial high thrust, and the other that is burning inside-out that burns longer and constitutes the sustainer. The side venturies are vented by over pressure relief valves, that shut down after the booster grain has burnt out, by then material covering the sustainer jet vane is consumed and sustaining mode thrusting phase starts.

Making such a dual impulse rocket engine is very tricky, because reduction in chamber pressure will generally flame out the engine, while solving that problem by using two different fuel chemistries for the 2 grains, (with the sustainer fuel being slow burning and requiring lower operating pressure) is fraught with other dangers like detonation, and attempts to make it opeque will have instability problem during the changeover.

JMT.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby sunilUpa » 08 Aug 2008 07:04

Arun ji,

Any reason as to why there isn't a man portable Nag?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby SaiK » 08 Aug 2008 07:59

40 odd kilos!~ must be brought down to 20kilos!?!?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby srai » 08 Aug 2008 08:03

JTull wrote:Rediff article is incorrect as it descibes 4 missiles being carried in ready-to-fire mode and 12 in storage. From the above picture it's clear that 8 cells are present read-to-fire.


Upto a couple of years back, the above was true of NAMICA - 4 in ready-to-fire mode. But I noticed the change to 8 missiles in ready-to-fire mode in 2008 Defense Expo.

Original (4 ready-to-fire):
Image

Since Def Expo 2008 (8 ready-to-fire):
Image

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

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2008 08:31

Milan-2T(?) I think is available as man portable ATGM.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 08 Aug 2008 08:33

Thanks Arun_S for the answer. Very informative post. But the jane's link mentions that on Nag, the booster and sustainer are ignited simultaneously and I think the video also confirms the same. It's a layman guess from my side that the missile has two separate motors for boost and sustainer phase. Looking at the picture from top right to bottom left, from radome to first seam it is the IIR seeker, from first seam to second it could be autopilot/computer :!: , from second to third seam it is the small warhead, from third to fourth it is the tandem bigger warhead for actual penetration, from fourth to fifth seam it looks like the booster and onwards it is the sustainer motor and control actuators. Looking for comments from gurus.

Cheers....

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1886
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kakarat » 08 Aug 2008 08:40

Arun_S wrote:
p_saggu wrote:The side vents are needed because of the 2nd tandem warhead right at the back end of the missile.
Arun_S can further clarify, I think there is a fast burning fuel / motor which gets it into motion from 0 speed, then the sustainer motor kicks in.

I am not sure myself. From my perspective the 4 side venturies are booster. The deflected venturies confign allows launching from close quarters without generating a huge jet flame that can endanger launch man/material; as well as provide much larger total rocket engine throat for that high initial thrust. The sustainer then takes over that is located in conventional aft section. Tandem charges IMHO is located ahead of the motor, mutually separated by battery & electronics compartment.

A short range missile like Nag is unlikely to have 2 separate stages. Albeit the same motor most likely has 2 fuel grains; one grain that is burning outside-in for the initial high thrust, and the other that is burning inside-out that burns longer and constitutes the sustainer. The side venturies are vented by over pressure relief valves, that shut down after the booster grain has burnt out, by then material covering the sustainer jet vane is consumed and sustaining mode thrusting phase starts.

Making such a dual impulse rocket engine is very tricky, because reduction in chamber pressure will generally flame out the engine, while solving that problem by using two different fuel chemistries for the 2 grains, (with the sustainer fuel being slow burning and requiring lower operating pressure) is fraught with other dangers like detonation, and attempts to make it opeque will have instability problem during the changeover.

JMT.


Image

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 08 Aug 2008 13:37

Kakarat wrote:Image

Wow. Thanks Kakarat. This cutout tells the story.

So Nag is truly 2 stage missile. Both stages are fired simultaneously because there is not much time for stage separation and also the missile ballistics is greatly helped by much greater acceleration due to thrust from both stages, apart from simpler flight control control law. From the image it looks like the booster is expended in <0.7 second (yes no typo here), and is jettisoned thereafter.

Front section is seeker + electronics and also the first shape charge penetrator (see that orange shape hollow in the red color metal penetrator with violet color rocket fuel grain, that is nudged on top side of electronics), the mid body has the main shape-charge penetrator (that is much larger).

This image shown Nag at the momemt of launch where booster is in action for the first half of the second.
Image

Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartman » 08 Aug 2008 14:51

K Mehta wrote:Comparing the Nag and the Akash configurations throws up an anomaly.
Nag is still mounted on a BMP-2 based carrier while Akash needs to tested on a T-72 chasis.
I find it a bit strange that an anti-tank missile carrier which will be travelling along with the tanks be made up of BMP while a medium range SAM needs to be mounted on a T-72 chasis. Though it can trail a bit and yet be effective.

Question to gurus
Is there a role difference or am I missing something? Do Anti-tank missile carriers trail the tank attack column or are kept for purely defensive posture?
JMTs etc

IIRC...
Nag ~ 42kg, 1.8m => 8 (ready-to-fire) + 12 (reload) rounds ~ 1600 kg + associated systems per NAMICA
Akash ~ 720 kg, 5.8m => 3 rounds ~ 2100 kg + larger launcher systems per ASPL

The Akash ASPL was configured previously on an extended BMP wth 7 road-wheels ... proved to be a tad too effete for the whole package. Larger missiles and systems make for a 'less managable' package in terms of CoG, etc, esp when mounted on a ~10 ton BMP chassis. The ~30 ton T-72 chassis, with a beefier powerpack + wider footprint would make for a more stable platform...

The Akash system, by design, is configured around separate support vehicles for ancillaries, reloads, power-supply, C3I, etc. apart from the Rajendra and 3DCAR. The NAMICA is meant to be a fully-autonomous package...

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Lalmohan » 08 Aug 2008 15:36

would it make sense to build a more modular NAMICA platform which can carry either Nag or Akash. need not be field configurable, but would be nice if one could take off a Nag top module and fix an Akash one depending on the mission parameters. using the T72 platform might also allow a 12 Nag carry?

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby rakall » 08 Aug 2008 16:04

Lalmohan wrote:would it make sense to build a more modular NAMICA platform which can carry either Nag or Akash. need not be field configurable, but would be nice if one could take off a Nag top module and fix an Akash one depending on the mission parameters. using the T72 platform might also allow a 12 Nag carry?


Weight & Cost -- consider both..

Is it worth spending on a T72 chassis for the NAMICA role? Isntt BMP a more economical option.

Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartman » 08 Aug 2008 16:07

sunilUpa wrote:Arun ji,

Any reason as to why there isn't a man portable Nag?


The Nag missile itself is ~42 kgs... with a launcher as well as the associated fire-control systems, this is way too heavy for a typical 2-man ATGM team.

But if one were to repackage things along the lines of:
- Nag missile => each missile into 4 man-portable modules of 8-12kg each = 2 X motors + 1 X tandem warhead + 1 X IIR seeker
- Fire-control package
- Launcher
then, one could potentially think of a platoon-level Nag fire-team without any vehicles:
- section commander => 1 JCO
- launcher => 1 OR
- fire-control unit => 1 OR
- 8-10 Nag missiles => 32-40 ORs

Fairly cumbersome, but could potentially pack a serious enough punch to break up an armour assault until more serious help arrives. With light vehicles (~3-4 jeeps), one could do the same thing with a platoon.

Just speculating n letting the ole imaginaton fly :)

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 08 Aug 2008 16:13

From the image it looks like the booster is expended in <0.7 second (yes no typo here), and is jettisoned thereafter.


I saw the nag firing video again and again but could not see anything jettisoned from the missile. The aft motor is the sustainer and the forward motor with sideways canted venturies is the booster.

Cheers...

Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartman » 08 Aug 2008 16:16

Rahul M wrote:
Muns wrote:
Rahul M wrote : Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.


What about the Mig 27's which are now undergoing upgrades as well? In any case if the report below is anything to go by, the IAF seems to think the Jags which recently are to undergo the Darin 3 upgrades will be able to do the job. Since the Mig 23's are being retired. The Jag IS/IM will be armed with the MMR Helina and have a range of 10kms.

Credits to ainspiron from keypub

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82331

ya, I have seen that report. it is still prasun sengupta whose middle name is imagination !
will believe it when there are other reports.
personally, I think,
may be that will be done if the Helina lives upto its expectations.

in the helos, if I may add.
regards.

p.s. one thing that gets me immediately suspicious is the mention of jag IM. what would an IM
do with an anti-tank missile with the IN's threat perception, where mission definition of the maritime jags calls for destruction of enemy surface assets at 100s of kms, so as not to endanger the IN's fleet with harpoons/chinese AShCMs.

The best candidates would be the mig-27s and the mig-21s that are left. both can be deployed from rugged forward air fields and would be available in numbers. the jags, mirages and the sukhois would be reserved for strike/AS roles, IMHO.
but all these would have to wait for the MMW version, IMHO. also, I'm not too sure about the 10 km figure.


The main constraint with Nag (or practically any other ATGM for that matter, IMHO) is the range of the fire-control system, whether IIR or MMW based. A detection/tracking/locking range of ~10 km, it's effective to deploy it only on slow-flying, highly-manoeuvrable aircraft, whether helos or fixed-wing (like the A-10 or Su-25). Esp. given typical MANPADs ranges of ~6 km...

Increasing the range of the missile itself is less of an issue.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests