Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Feb 2017 14:22

But do we need to just import 11 billion worth, why not follow SU-30 MKI model- first import followed by TOT with source codes, if it going to be import restrict it like Rafale in nos.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Feb 2017 14:28

Or may be we will make the missiles at home.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2017 14:34

Aditya_V wrote:But do we need to just import 11 billion worth, why not follow SU-30 MKI model- first import followed by TOT with source codes, if it going to be import restrict it like Rafale in nos.

Who said its 11 billion worth , the last quoted figure was ~ $5 billion for 5 Systems thats like 5 regiments , Roughly 1 regiment is 2 division Each division consists of eight launchers, 112 missiles, as well as the necessary command , radar and support vehicles

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Feb 2017 20:04

I am very intrigued by the A5 launch too.
No pictures out in public domain at all.

Was it a pointy nose missile or a blunt circular nosed system?

Further does the K4/5 have a blunt nose with an aerospike now? The one test that we did get to see grainy videos of had a sharp tip with possibly a single warhead in it. But I wonder if things have moved along now.

China went full paki after the A5 test, wonder what their reaction will be once the test is publicly announced

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 21 Feb 2017 20:30

K4 has a blunt /ogival nose since it has the (what I call as0 nose ring collar to creat supercavitation and lift out of the water.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Feb 2017 00:36

I'm not talking about the nose cap, that ejects after the missile exits the water. That is ogival, and creates the supercavitation bubble.

I am talking about a gentle curved nose of the missile that houses MIRVs and possibly uses an aerospike.
DRDO has said they were looking at an Aerospike design, and this was quite some time ago.

Just wondering, when DRDO is going to test a MIRVed system. Consider the following conspiracy theory:

1. The A5 was tested on Dec 26. China went absolutely paki after this.
2. On Jan 24, pakis claimed a test of a MIRVed missile.
3. On Jan 31, china tests a MIRVed missile with 10 warheads.

DRDO, never released any picture of the Dec 26 A5 test. Wonder what it is about that test that got Uncle Cheena's goat hain ji?

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 22 Feb 2017 00:43

More than A5 they must be riled by K4 (or some say it was a K5)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Feb 2017 01:14

What if the new missile looked like this, instead of the earlier look?

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 22 Feb 2017 02:44

DRDO ppt shows this image anyway

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... wat.64217/

Look at the A-6 throw weight in the slide .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Feb 2017 09:38

Bheeshma wrote:DRDO ppt shows this image anyway

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... wat.64217/

Look at the A-6 throw weight in the slide .

Nice find , The original presentation video seems to have been lost though

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Feb 2017 10:22

I suspect they are keeping the A5 TEL under wraps, hence no pictures of the previous test. AFAIK the A5 is supposed to be road mobile (unlike the previous version which are only rail mobile?) and no pictures of the TEL have been released till now.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Feb 2017 17:22

Also possible that A5 as it stands is actually A5-TD
The real deal is the MIRVed A-6, mounted on a TEL, and the MIRVed K-5.

Wrt A5, DRDO has carried out incremental developments with each test
The first test was fired from a TEL, not cannisterized
Second test was cannistrized
Wonder what the third was? It is possible this was a MIRVed & cannisterized test.

Maybe they can get one of those Ukranian/Russian style TELs, or standardize on a entirely indian design of TEL

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Feb 2017 17:39

Ukr/Russia have a lot of forests and mud where the road mobile regiments disappear into . for India thats not case , so the current commerical type volvo trucks are fine ... not expected to go off road.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Feb 2017 18:45

Hmm. Foreign Sec, Jaishankar is in China, doing pow-wow with the PRC . Wonder if we will see the K-5 launch during his visit or will it be held back after he is done. His visit could explain the reason why there was no launch. Chinese of course did a nuke test when Vajpayee was visiting Beijing as the Foreign Minister. So every time there is a high level Chinese visit, we should have a test of our own Agony Aunt /K5

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 23 Feb 2017 17:39

Delhi Defence Review‏@delhidefence 7h7 hours ago
Sources say the re-scheduling of the K-4 SLBM test that was slated for mid-February was due to technical issues with the launch pontoon.

PM Modi clears air defence missile deal with Israel for Rs 17,000 crore
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-m ... 89451.html

As per the proposal cleared by the government, the Army will induct over five regiments of the MR-SAM missile which will have around 40 firing units and over 200 missiles of the system. "The delivery of the first system for the Army units will begin in 72 months of the signing of the contract and they would be ready for deployment in field areas by the year 2023," said the sources.

Hyderabad-based Bharat Dynamis Limited will produce the missiles of the system while many other Indian industries like Bharat Electronics Ltd, Larsen and Toubro, TATA group will contribute in the production for many systems and sub-systems in it. A new production facility to deliver 100 missiles a year has been established for such type of long and medium range surface-to-air missiles at BDL.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Feb 2017 20:11

^^ "The delivery of the first system for the Army units will begin in 72 months of the signing of the contract and they would be ready for deployment in field areas by the year 2023,"

Isn't 6 yrs too long ?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 23 Feb 2017 20:46

Only 200 missiles ? Any information about it's manufacturing and Indian share ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 23 Feb 2017 23:56

Why on earth would a launch pontoon have technical issues unless it is a somewhat different missile being tested than the original K-4 ? If not the K-5, a new K-4 variant with a different launch method (i.e, without a cavitation motoron the nose) ?

Also, if the INS Arihant has already fired the K-4, it makes sense to conduct futue tests of the K-4 from the INS Arihant rather than a pontoon and that too, the tests should be conducted out i the ocean rather then near Vizag, where the sub coud be tracked given enough ntice via NOTAMs to hostile powers.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 24 Feb 2017 00:01

You are not reading the thread properly. Arihant has already tested K4. This is a new variant. Hence, pontoon modified.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Feb 2017 00:07

At the end of the day, the aim should be to acquire hefty nuclear firepower as fast as possible. A silo based weaponized (and upgraded) variant of the PSLV with 10 warheads may be the quickest route for this capability. Even PRC seems to have gone this way with the DF-5C, which is closely related to the LM-2C. Of course, this will need BM early warning satellites, but once those are in place (and we will need such satellites any way), such a system in silos together with a launch-on-warning posture may be the best way to go.

After all, increased production capabilities shall also be in place in a few years. Reserving 6-8 such systems each year for the deterrent, a formidable capability can be built in as little as five years. Limited testing (two launches or so) would suffice, given the PSLV's own launch record. This is what PRC appears to be doing as well. After 1979, not that many DF-5/5A/5B/5C tests have taken place per se (about 10 or so going by launch records). Of course, the LM-2C and its derivatives have been launched over 200 times.

The effort and resources required to acquire comparable firepower through road mobile missiles or SLBMs is much more. Of course, road mobile missiles and SLBMs that are technologically cutting-edge but account for less firepower can be yet another component of the deterrent as an insutance against the soli-based systems getting eliminated in a first strike.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Feb 2017 06:03

Russia's S-400 air defence system for India may get offset waiver.
To be categorised as strategic G to G buy.

https://twitter.com/manupubby_ET/status ... 8588862464

To speed up deliveries, Russia's S-400 air defence system may come without offset package
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 260971.cms

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Feb 2017 06:15

Prime Minister clears Rs 17,000-crore missile deal to protect India's airspace
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... -deal.html

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 25 Feb 2017 00:59

ramdas wrote:At the end of the day, the aim should be to acquire hefty nuclear firepower as fast as possible. A silo based weaponized (and upgraded) variant of the PSLV with 10 warheads may be the quickest route for this capability. Even PRC seems to have gone this way with the DF-5C, which is closely related to the LM-2C. Of course, this will need BM early warning satellites, but once those are in place (and we will need such satellites any way), such a system in silos together with a launch-on-warning posture may be the best way to go.

Any solution with a liquid fueled rocket is a bad bad bad solution. You can't keep a rocket fuelled for long due to corrosion and you don't have time to fuel it during second strike. Our Agni series has performed stellar and all we need is a Agni 5 with MIRV. Nothing more, nothing less.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Feb 2017 01:10

Many soviet liquid fuelled missiles as well as the Titan II stayed fuelled for decades. Maintenance becomes systematic when they are silo based. Well-maintained silo-based misiles are launched under consitions that are as controlled as launhesfrom a center like SHAR. Russia continues to place faith in such systems, the most refined iterationbeing the upcoming Sarmat.

The Agni V will have a puny payload compared to such a PSLV conversion (Similarly, the DF-41 will never have anywhere near the payload of the DF-5C no matter what they claim). It still remains relevant as an insurance against first strike. But it requires more rapid testing, and production capacities for this system are not as established as for the PSLV. Of course, going silo-based means we need the relevant infrastructure: satellite based EW and a launch-on-warning posture.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 25 Feb 2017 02:06

PSLV is 42 m long? Why go the ridiculous noko way? If required scale the A-6 to be 20 m and 2m Dia and I am sure it will meet the payload requirements. The slide I posted a while back already mentions 3 tonne as the throw weight of A-6.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Feb 2017 03:19

Our next step is NEPE based solid propellants.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 25 Feb 2017 06:00

Austin wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:But do we need to just import 11 billion worth, why not follow SU-30 MKI model- first import followed by TOT with source codes, if it going to be import restrict it like Rafale in nos.
Who said its 11 billion worth , the last quoted figure was ~ $5 billion for 5 Systems thats like 5 regiments , Roughly 1 regiment is 2 division Each division consists of eight launchers, 112 missiles, as well as the necessary command , radar and support vehicles

Saar a question,

Does each division has its separate Radar and Missiles? So basically 10 divisions with separate radars,missiles,support vehicles?Thats should be enough to cover majority of India with S 400s?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 25 Feb 2017 06:23

Indranil wrote:Our next step is NEPE based solid propellants.

This will increase the range and speed limiting boost phase intercept window.

arun · Post by **arun** » 25 Feb 2017 08:12

Indranil wrote:Our next step is NEPE based solid propellants.

Indeed!

Back in July 2013 on page 51 of this thread I had posted an excerpt from an IDSA Paper that indicated that Hydroxyl-Terminated Poly Butadiene (HTPB) is being elbowed aside by Nitrate Ester Plasticized Polyether (NEPE) as the solid propellant of choice for Ballistic Missiles and here India is losing technological ground to P.R. China:

Clicky

Anyway DRDO has been working on developing NEPE propellants. Complete article titled “Solid Rocket Propellants - Challenges Ahead” from the DRDO Newsletter of March 2010. Besides DRDO is working to lace propellants with explosives like RDX, HMX and CL-20:

In DRDO, case-bonded rocket was first processed at High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune in 1997. Later on, 1 m dia motors for various missile programmes were processed by augmenting the facility. Recently, a state-of-the-art facility has become operational at Nasik to meet the large-diameter motor requirements for the DRDL programmes. Requirements of ASL programme are met at their captive plant. The composite propellants have been formulated with 4-40 mm/s burn rate at 50 ksc pressure.

Processing technology developed so far meets the requirement of large-diameter case-bonded processing in single-motor casting mode. Multiple motor (maximum 3 numbers of large dia) processing will begin soon. There are many challenges ahead in the rocket motor processing area. First and foremost is the need to set–up a small caliber larger number motor processing facility to meet the requirement of tactical systems. The property requirements of tactical system motors for specific properties are very stringent due to extreme temperature envelop and loads in field conditions.

Chances of rejection of PINAKA propellant grain can be minimised by minor modification in propellant composition to bring it in line with today’s technology and knowledge base. To enhance the range, monolith case bonded PINAKA may not be the correct option as the cost of grain rejection will be high due to casing loss. Case-bonded grain in PINAKA with single or double joint with composite coupler may be tried. Long/medium/short range surface-to-air missile, air-to-air Astra missiles are under advanced stage of development.

Cumulative requirement of rocket motors of small caliber in the near future will cross tens of thousands every year. Setting up a moderate capacity plant for processing small case-bonded or cartridge-loaded grains cost about 200 crore and need 350 acre land. To meet this production demand, participation of private sector company is inevitable. Going by the huge investment involved, big companies need to be convinced for investment, by placing assured bulk orders for at least 10 years.

At present, cassette casting and pressure casting technologies are being developed which are ideal for large number motor processing. Technology is also being developed to process dual-thrust grain to meet the boost and sustain phase requirement during flight. To process the complicated web geometry grains, ribbon casting has been developed and the propulsion system was used in pop-up trial of a missile recently. In a space-constrained system, high performance index (Isp X density) propellant is being developed by increasing solid loading.

Recently, a 26-petal geometry motor with 25 kp viscosity was cast by bottom pressure casting at 10 atm pressure and cured at 20 atm pressure which demonstrated 5 per cent gain in performance index. For casting intricate geometry grain, collapsible dissolving mandrel technology is being pursuaded.

Recently, HEMRL has developed EPDM-based insulation for thermal protection of motor from inside and plasma etching technology is being developed to improve the interface integrity between the propellant and insulation liner.

The strategic programme of DRDO will require further heavy lift booster in the coming years. In another 5 years, there will be demands from many missile systems for composite case (carbon/ epoxy) motors. There is a need to develop infrastructure for the production of composite case motors in large numbers dia. In many strategic systems, third stage will be added, preferably with low-density energetic propellants in composite case for the range gain.

Propellant systems with ß-HMX is under development with 7s gain in Isp. High energy propellant based on nitrate esters /RS RDX and NEPE / ß HMX are under development. Conventional HTPB propellant with low aluminum powder and RDX have been developed with 2 pulse motor technology for LRSAM. This composition has demonstrated very high elongation capability.

The technology of HTPB binder-based propellant has matured enough in DRDO. All the raw materials are indigenous and it has developed its source for critical materials like HTPB resin and ammonium perchlorates. Of late, a trend has been started to use high energy materials like ADN, CL-20, and nitramines for low smoke and eco-friendly propellant but this activity in a proper scale needs to be initiated in DRDO.

For processing high energy propellants, vendors have been developed for producing nitrate esters, high energy materials and binders such as CL-20, GAP, etc. A plant will be commissioned by 2011 for producing highly dispersed RDX and HMX. A large scale propellant plant is needed to handle 1.1 HD compositions with safer processing technology and machines like mobile system, gravitational mixers, etc. All the machines for raw material processing, mixing, NDT, etc. are available in India. For faster NDT of grain structure in rocket propellent or motor, cobalt 60 based systems have been installed. A mobile system is being developed to monitor the health parameters of rocket motors in storage and field conditions. Personnel safety should be further improved by carrying out all the hazardous operations in remote modes. Top priority needs to be accorded to improve the systems reliability. This can be achieved by resorting to proper inspections, quality checks and reviews at sub system level.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2017 09:05

I am totally in favour Ramdas above - a limited set of some 50 silo based heavy ICBMs build up over say 10 years is a great long term investment . the silos themselves can take future missiles.

a 3-stage PSLV with no strap on boosters might be just the ticket for a 20t throw weight to 15,000 km .

more fun and games is possible if we built a underground network of tunnels and the MX missile hauler

these are all science projects that build infra and manpower quality.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Feb 2017 09:41

Indranil wrote:There is more reason to cheer for this Pinaka Mk2 success. India is slowly moving over to NEPE-based propellants. Nirbhay-booster and Pinaka Mk2 are the first to use them. Click here. This will make our missiles lighter and reach further.

Also gleaned from that link, the SFDR-based A2A missile will have a range of 120 km in power on mode.

Arun sir,

This is what I had posted after the Mk2 trials. Please follow the link in that post. It will be worth your time. It seems DRDO has followed up on what was posted in the 2010 article you posted. By the way, SA to the RM confirms Ajai Shukla's report that the Pinaka Mk2 has a range of close to 80 km (watch from 2:45 onwards)!

I have become convinced that we will not build rockets with any longer range than Agni-5 in the current geo-political set-up. Better propellants and all composite stages will now be used now to decrease weight and dimensions (SLBMs and better road mobile systems) and increase their throw mass (for MIRV/MaRV).

Increasing range is no longer a challenge for India. The whole world knows this by now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2017 10:56

^ or even a large swarm of 10m long 1-warhead desi midgetman....confuse and build redundancy with numbers at the low end, and with mirv at the high end.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2017 12:30

Singha wrote:I am totally in favour Ramdas above - a limited set of some 50 silo based heavy ICBMs build up over say 10 years is a great long term investment . the silos themselves can take future missiles.

a 3-stage PSLV with no strap on boosters might be just the ticket for a 20t throw weight to 15,000 km .

more fun and games is possible if we built a underground network of tunnels and the MX missile hauler these are all science projects that build infra and manpower quality.

After seeing videos of the Titan silo explosion, I would not recommend any liquid fuel silo based rockets. It's a Kalidasa move. There is a reason solid fuel rockets are preferred in Submarines and in silos.
US abandoned MX rail based systems after realizing the accuracy yield combination of FSU missiles makes them vulnerable.
Science is good when not dangerous.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Feb 2017 13:46

As for silo based missiles, PRC with the DF-5B/5C and Russia with the R-36M2 and now Sarmat are firmly sticking heavy liquid fuel missiles. These do allow for quick buildup of large firepower. PSLV also uses solid fuel for stage 1 and stage 3.

@Singha: one should roughly go by LEO payload when looking at heavy missiles. LM-2C has a 3-3.5 ton payload to 200 km LEO (4t for stretched versions). The DF-5C has a 5 ton throw weight to 15000 km by some estimates. The PSLV-XL has a close to 4t payload to 200 km LEO. Would have a DF-5C like or slightly better performance to 15000 km trajectory. Not 20 ton throw weight. Of course, PSLV weighs much more than DF-5C, but if it is to be in a silo, what difference does it make whether it is 200 tons or 320 tons ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2017 14:10

go solid if one has to, but make them fat and meaty, enough for 10 mirv solution. liquids have higher energy density I think so universally used for SLV

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 25 Feb 2017 16:44

Silos. PSLVs. 15000 kms missile. Who do you want to fight ramdas? US? Why now?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Feb 2017 16:56

@Supratik: What about with a 10 ton payload ? The range would be much lower 6-7k kms. with a hefty payload capable of beating any missile defence PRC would deploy in the next several decades.

Also, 15k km missile does not mean we intend fighting someone. A deterrent against all nuke states helps. Another point: PRC tests its 15000 km missiles to a 2500 km range or so most of the time. Can we be sure PRC only intends those for the US and not for us ? Any specially tailored 5 k missile with the 5 ton payload needs the whole process run all over again: develop, test, test , test,..... This would take 10-15 years. Why not use what is already in hand, even if it appears to be overkill ?

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 25 Feb 2017 19:24

New Tests on March 1 and 2

INDIA EAST COAST – OFF BALASORE (.) CHARTS 31 351 352 INT 71 (.)

EXPERIMENTAL FLIGHT TRIAL SCHEDULED FROM ITR FROM 010230 TO 010630 AND 020330 TO 020730 UTC MAR 17 IN DANGER ZONE BOUNDED BY

21-22.04N 086-56.37E, 21-09.75N 086-50.59E, 19-37.38N 087-31.93E, 20-02.60N 088-35.28E, 21-37.29N 087-52.26E

2. CANCEL THIS MSG 020830 UTC MAR 17

sas · Post by **sas** » 25 Feb 2017 22:50

HSTDV (from 2016 tenders):

From the following image of a rig, you can see the cross section of the HSDTV

At its widest it is about 850 mm wide and 400 mm tall. Length of article is roughly 3 mtrs.

^^^
Thin wall cylinder with clevis mounting on either side and a roller wheel @ SECTION S1S1 image is an assembly fixture.

The octagon shaped cross-section seems to be the top portion of the HSTDV, just below this ocatgon section, HSTDV houses the entire air-intake, diffuser and CC.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7ux ... dv&f=false

In the above link @ page 329 there is a snapshot of HSTDV CAD model which depicts the similar octagon shaped cross-section mounted inside the assembly fixture.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Feb 2017 22:58

In general for the export of Brahmos there are misgivings that tech might be stolen, in that respect while indigenization percent is going up on the Brahmos, how much of it is critical when compared to the Yakhont? which is already with export customers

The goal is to have a squad of say four Vietnamese Su-30s armed with Yakhont that can do carrier killing be the welcome party when the second
Chinese carrier comes online, no dithering here.