Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

[Austin]

It is entirely conceivable that it has 200+ km range against largely cooperative targets and 150 km range against maneuvering, supersonic-capable targets. In fact that makes a lot more sense given the size. But like I said, a heavier, large diameter missile is still not an optimal solution as a BVRAAM for air-combat (against targets that you have to fight) given both the agility that you can put on lighter missiles with current generation technology (while still giving them excellent kinematics) and the impact on the aircraft carrying it. It is likely that Russia pursues multiple missiles while keeping this more tailored to the higher value targets.

Most SAM are heavier missile with large diameter so that does not mean it has no agility or is not effective against fighter targets. Traditionally BVRAAM has been lighter because of carrier/size/weight restrictions and the need to carry many types , Fighter have those limitations hence it is compensated by other ways. A large diameter missile with Dual Propulsion will still give you excellent kinemetics , greater range and since they carry larger diameter seeker better power and burn through capability , RVV-BD carry dual mode seeker.

Here is a good data point of RVV-BD you will have to use translator
https://topwar.ru/129275-raketa-vozduh- ... vv-bd.html

[brar_w]

Most SAM are heavier missile with large diameter so that does not mean it has no agility or is not effective against fighter targets.

You do realize that I am specifically referring in relative terms here right? So if it is so agile, like a modern SAM as you say, why can it only go after 8G aircraft at reduced range, and why does it need a warhead 3 times larger than a conventional BVRAAM? Your article basically confirms what I have been saying vis-a-vis maneuverability of this weapon relative to traditional 7-8" class BVRAAMS -

As experts note, RVV-BD missiles are designed primarily to destroy the enemy's cruise missiles at long range, as well as their direct carrier aircraft. Due to the design features that are required to ensure the enormous range of the missile's flight, it has less maneuvering capabilities than small- and medium-range missiles.

Traditionally BVRAAM has been lighter because of carrier/size/weight restrictions and the need to carry many types , Fighter have those limitations hence it is compensated by other ways.

And brute force motor solutions can be substituted for in other ways such as a ducted ramjet as the meteor does. Furthermore, if you invest in technology to make the missile more agile and more accurate you can further impact design size and weight by lowering the warhead weight. Some of the most accurate SAMs feature some of the smallest warheads because of their ability to turn on a dime and their accuracy on account of higher frequency seekers.

I see this missile as one against a high value target threat. It won't get to be the BVRAAM of choice for the fighter force where something in the class of R-77 is likely to be produced just as everyone else is doing. There is a good reason for this! The same is true for the telephone pole the Chinese recently unveiled. There is a reason the 7-8" trade space is considered optimal for BVR Missiles when fighters actually have to fight a target and need to carry a decent missile load. With modern technology you can make the missile fly farther with better kinematics and be more accurate via better signals processing, networking and significantly improved seekers.

[kurup]

B'mos Air Launched test rescheduled to Nov 21-23

[Austin]

You do realize that I am specifically referring in relative terms here right? So if it is so agile, like a modern SAM as you say, why can it only go after 8G aircraft at reduced range, and why does it need a warhead 3 times larger than a conventional BVRAAM? Your article basically confirms what I have been saying vis-a-vis maneuverability of this weapon relative to traditional 7-8" class BVRAAMS

Why only 8G tell me how many aircraft Pull 10 G or 9G all the time in combat , You can even do a 8 or 7G and do a kill via proximity fuse , The warhead size is large because the missile is large and can afford a large warhead size , If you hit a bomber you better hit with a 60 kg warhead then a 15 kg one its a guranteed mission kill , for the same reason it has larger seeker because its a larger missile and afford it.

They only down side I see its its size 500 kg versus 180 kg for most BVR missile or even less.

And brute force motor solutions can be substituted for in other ways such as a ducted ramjet as the meteor does. Furthermore, if you invest in technology to make the missile more agile and more accurate you can further impact design size and weight by lowering the warhead weight. Some of the most accurate SAMs feature some of the smallest warheads because of their ability to turn on a dime and their accuracy on account of higher frequency seekers.

Both have their vitue , A Ducted Ramjet affords a small volume/size , A Solid Motor will be large in size , A solid missile with dual propulsion would be loafted at hight altitude and can dive upon the target increasing its range a Ramjet would have altitude restriction.

Please note RVV-BD has dual propulsion like Barak-8 that is the next step in solid propulision to provide optium energy till end game.

I see this missile as one against a high value target threat. It won't get to be the BVRAAM of choice for the fighter force where something in the class of R-77 is likely to be produced just as everyone else is doing. There is a good reason for this! The same is true for the telephone pole the Chinese recently unveiled. There is a reason the 7-8" trade space is considered optimal for BVR Missiles when fighters actually have to fight a target and need to carry a decent missile load. With modern technology you can make the missile fly farther with better kinematics and be more accurate via better signals processing, networking and significantly improved seekers.

Obviously they would use that agaist HVT because of its greater stand off range and BVRAAM would have its own use case as well. In non-export model the Mig-31M and R-37M are capable of intercepting targets flying at Mach 6 , if you check YEfim Gordon book he mentioned a range of 300 Km for JSTAR type target and 150 km for fighters

[Neela]

Interesting. Where does this Sengupta say this..? any Link..?

The impression I got from the marketing guy of Poer Jet when I talked to him in AI 17 was that the bigger engines are still a bit into future. They were working only on the smallest one. It would be rather impressive if they are already putting engines on Nirbhay.

http://www.poeirjets.com/engineering-development/

Poier classifies this as "Small Jet Engine" for strategic applications.
350 kgf Thrust
SFC is 1.7 kg VS 0.7 in Saturn 36MT.

[JayS]

Interesting. Where does this Sengupta say this..? any Link..?

The impression I got from the marketing guy of Poer Jet when I talked to him in AI 17 was that the bigger engines are still a bit into future. They were working only on the smallest one. It would be rather impressive if they are already putting engines on Nirbhay.

http://www.poeirjets.com/engineering-development/

Poier classifies this as "Small Jet Engine" for strategic applications.
350 kgf Thrust
SFC is 1.7 kg VS 0.7 in Saturn 36MT.

What would be interesting to see is actual status of the engine. Their site doesn't give any clue.

[brar_w]

They only down side I see its its size 500 kg versus 180 kg for most BVR missile or even less.

Yeah that's just a small down-side (MRAAMs are in the 150-180 kg range in comparison, so we are talking about 3 times the weight here).

Both have their vitue , A Ducted Ramjet affords a small volume/size , A Solid Motor will be large in size , A solid missile with dual propulsion would be loafted at hight altitude and can dive upon the target increasing its range a Ramjet would have altitude restriction.

A ducted ramjet is an efficient way to add kinematic performance and sustain cruise speed vs a SRM given a finite size and footprint. The only "virtue" an SRM has over it is for very short to medium range performance where it doesn't have to carry the extra weight associated with the VFDR given a fixed design weight and size margin. A lofted trajectory is only superior if the altitudes given intercept dynamics CANNOT be achieved by a comparative VFDR weapon ( Now this is interesting since you mentioned it, I am sure you can also elaborate on exactly which profiles a fat SRM can loft higher than the meteor?).

The dynamics are clearly at play here, hence you end up with a weapon that is many times the design weight of a standard BVRAAM and is obviously not as agile so needs to carry a very large warhead.

Please note RVV-BD has dual propulsion like Barak-8 that is the next step in solid propulision to provide optium energy till end game.

I am aware that it like many missiles has a dual thrust motor but that still doesn't mean a competitive design weight or size to BVRAAMs. It is really a long range engagement weapon against high value targets and is going to be inferior against "fighting" targets at medium-long ranges compared to dedicated LR weapons such as the Meteor. As I said, expect Russia to produce and procure an NG BVRAAM in the standard 7-8" class. There are now well established, and in service/demonstrated ways of addressing both range/kinematics and seeker/networking performance of 7-8" class weapons. VFDR, Dual/Multi Pulse motors can be fitted on them extending medium range intercepts to long range intercepts, and you can now network them via higher fidelity 2-way data links, and provide GPS+INS for more accuracy and move to higher frequency seekers which will get you better performance and jam resistance. In short, there are things you can do in terms of extended range engagements with a standard MRAAM (AMRAAM/R77) sized weapon that you couldn't 15 years ago, and do it without adding too much bulk in terms of weight, and size allowing you to get extended range performance while retaining the size, weight, agility and carriage_impact of the original MRAAM for the most part.

[Austin]

Again Agility of weapons has nothing to do with its size else all the SAMS in the world wont be agile because most have large diameter and these will be in 7-8 '' class ! Warhead size depends on the volume and the target you want to attack , if you want a SSKP for any large target you need a bigger warhed over a smaller one , Else All the SAMS in the world would carry warhead of a MANPADS.

I get you point and I dont have any disagreement over Ramjet being the best for BVR missile because of size volume issue but that does not take away the virtue of Dual Propulsion Solid fuel missile which are designed to over comes shortcoming of solid fuel missile ineffeciency in end game energy at long ranges and ability to loft the missile at higher trajectory providing optimum range to target.

Lets Assume that the Russian Design Bureau does not know what they are doing and we know much better and we need 7-8 '' class missile to deal with long range targets with ramjet propulsion with less warhead weight and smaller radar aperture , I am sure there is no other way to arrive at the solution.

[brar_w]

Again Agility of weapons has nothing to do with its size else all the SAMS in the world wont be agile because most have large diameter and these will be in 7-8 '' class !

Let me state (for the second time) that I am taking in relative terms here. An air launched missile is not a SAM. It is not of the size of a SAM. There are design, weight, and margins that are different from a SAM as should be obvious. And as far as agility vis-a-vis this particular weapon, I'm in agreement with the link you yourself shared -

As experts note, RVV-BD missiles are designed primarily to destroy the enemy's cruise missiles at long range, as well as their direct carrier aircraft. Due to the design features that are required to ensure the enormous range of the missile's flight, it has less maneuvering capabilities than small- and medium-range missiles.

Warhead size depends on the volume and the target you want to attack

Warhead size actually depends upon your modeling on how effective your overall weapon is given a particular target set. The trade space is created factoring in weapon agility, seeker performance, accuracy, errors associated with intercept dynamics and warhead performance. If you can create a more accurate weapon and advance its kinematics and agility you can shrink requirements in warhead and obtain benefits. Similarly if you pack in a very large warhead, you can reduce requirements for agility. There are umpteen number of AIAA papers out there that speak about the trade space and interceptor missile design that one can reference to get a better idea on what the designers use as far as a trade space is concerned.

Else All the SAMS in the world would carry warhead of a MANPADS.

All SAMs in the world don't offer the same level of agility, kinematic performance or seeker accuracy.

I get you point and I dont have any disagreement over Ramjet being the best for BVR missile

There is nothing that is absolutely best at BVR. It all depends upon design goals. As explained at short-medium ranges a ramjet is actually at a disadvantage against a simpler SRM. A liquid fueled ramjet is at a disadvantage from a maintainability stand point and those solutions have often been rejected in A2A BVRAAMs. A VFDR still carries about a 20% weight penalty compared to an SRM, though with the Mustang Inlet AFRL has largely mitigated the Meteor's packaging problem so that aspect has improved. VFDR begins to get you advantages on intercept profiles where there is a large cruise phase since it can sustain speed unlike an SRM. A dual pulse motor tries to combine the two but obviously cannot throttle its speed to the same extent as a VFDR. But regardless, as I mentioned earlier the dual-pulse rocket motor still results in a missile (in this case) that is nearly 3 times the weight of a standard BVRAAM. Again, as I mentioned earlier it is due to the target set..i.e. this is a weapon that is meant primarily for the high value targets hence the design choices. Decisions made to make this a effective long range engagement weapon against largely a "cooperative" target set make it inferior to BVRAAMs against targets that can actually fight and turn and accelerate.

This would be fine if MRAAMs couldn't efficiently grow to become extended range weapons. With current technology they absolutely can so better optimized, long rang engagement weapons are possible in much smaller footprints than either this or the telephone pole the Chinese revealed a few months back. Much like other "high value target" weapons..the requirements make them sub-optimal against other threat types even though in theory they may have an effective envelope against some of them. There is no way around that when you strap on a 14-15", 500 kg air to air missile.

Again, this isn't a SAM where you can play around more freely with the form factor, control surface size, seeker concepts, guidance, networking and staging unlike a weapon meant to be carried by an aircraft which has to work within set design parameters with significantly reduced margins for growth to overcome some of the challenges (narrower trade space).

[Austin]

Let me state (for the second time) that I am taking in relative terms here. An air launched missile is not a SAM. It is not of the size of a SAM. There are design, weight, and margins that are different from a SAM as should be obvious. And as far as agility vis-a-vis this particular weapon, I'm in agreement with the link you yourself shared -

When the SAM is in the air it would face the same issue with agility because it is fat and if not why would a fat A2A missile should have issue with agility ? Unless You say what works for SAM should not work for AAM

As experts note, RVV-BD missiles are designed primarily to destroy the enemy's cruise missiles at long range, as well as their direct carrier aircraft. Due to the design features that are required to ensure the enormous range of the missile's flight, it has less maneuvering capabilities than small- and medium-range missiles.

That is what I stated for long range they would just loft the missile at 25 Km and dive on the target from top they dont need agility there but for fighter aircraft where you want to hit say a 9G manouvering target you need agility the range would decrease but it would still hit the target.

That is the issue with any BVR missile today with solid fuel barring Ramjet , Let any BVR missile try to take on a fighter target at its maximum claimed range , their range too would drop down to half of claimed range.

Warhead size actually depends upon your modeling on how effective your overall weapon is given a particular target set. The trade space is created factoring in weapon agility, seeker performance, accuracy, errors associated with intercept dynamics and warhead performance. If you can create a more accurate weapon and advance its kinematics and agility you can shrink requirements in warhead and obtain benefits. Similarly if you pack in a very large warhead, you can reduce requirements for agility.

Not exactly true you can have the most accurate weapon with HTK capability but a large warhead would end up maximum destruction of target compared to the same missile with smaller warhead. The Radius of Destruction of a larger warhead will be higher than a smaller one plus the destructive potential

If an AMRAAM say with 23 kg warhed and RVV-BD with 60 kg warhead hits a fighter what is guranteed to cause more destruction to a fighter or a bomber ?

All SAMs in the world don't offer the same level of agility, kinematic performance or seeker accuracy.

Even the more accurate SAM in the world carry larger warhead than a BVR missile why dont they carry warhead of a MANPADS even with HTK capability ?

Again, as I mentioned earlier it is due to the target set..i.e. this is a weapon that is meant primarily for the high value targets hence the design choices.

Well lets say Yefim Gorden disagrees with you , He clearly thinks that it effective for both just the range to target differs.

You answer one simple question to me , RVV-BD as per its manuf states capable of hitting 8G targets how many fighter targets would be doing 8G ? Lets assume they do max 9G to evade and if the missile still does 8G and goes close and the proximity fuse comes into play and its 60Kg warhead explodes it would still kill the target isnt it ? All keeping in mind each missile will have its own Pk.

Does the missile really have to pull 9G to take on a 9G target ?

[brar_w]

When the SAM is in the air it would face the same issue with agility because it is fat and if not why would a fat A2A missile should have issue with agility ? Unless You say what works for SAM should not work for AAM

SAMs are not designed with the same constraints as a BVRAAM. You can make the same large and heavy yet still make it high performance and able to impart lot of agility by focusing on other design features, staging and control surfaces. Design margins and trade spaces on an BVRAAM are much narrower as should be obvious.

That is what I stated for long range they would just loft the missile at 25 Km and dive on the target from top they dont need agility there but for fighter aircraft where you want to hit say a 9G manouvering target you need agility the range would decrease but it would still hit the target.

Not necessarily unless one assumes that the missile is kinematically limited and can still maneuver to the same level as lighter more optimized missiles when kinematics are not a factor.

Not exactly true you can have the most accurate weapon with HTK capability but a large warhead would end up maximum destruction of target compared to the same missile with smaller warhead. The Radius of Destruction of a larger warhead will be higher than a smaller one plus the destructive potential

The objective of a missile intercept is to first and foremost complete the intercept and then to obtain a favorable outcome i.e. fly-out and find and fix the target and then obtain your overall objectives. Warhead sizing is part of that trade space and optimizing warhead is purposely done so that you carry the right sized warhead for the purpose and not something that is too small or too big which will be sub-optimal and will lead to shortfalls elsewhere.

If an AMRAAM say with 23 kg warhed and RVV-BD with 60 kg warhead hits a fighter what is guranteed to cause more destruction to a fighter or a bomber ?

If RVV-BD++ carries a 200 kg warhead which will have more destruction on target? What about RVV-BD Super ++ with 500 kg warhead? Get the drift? Warhead's exist to achieve a desired effect on target and you model, develop and test to verify that you are right sizing it for the mission. Warhead sizing can be used to compensate elsewhere such as upping warhead size to overcome kinematics, agility or accuracy issues.

Even the more accurate SAM in the world carry larger warhead than a BVR missile why dont they carry warhead of a MANPADS even with HTK capability ?

As I mentioned there are nuances of design trade spaces at play here. How do you make a missile more accurate? First you start by providing it the most accurate tracking information to it (this has nothing to do with the missile itself and is a great way of improving the accuracy and performance of your missiles by addressing the kill chain). If you can improve the accuracy of your tracking information then that provides a major boost to the accuracy of your weapon. Improvements in networking and two-way data-linking are also known to ensure more accurate information along with PNT advances. Second you make the seeker more accurate by improving its capability. Modern SAMs with the highest seeker cost margins have moved to higher bands (such as Ka Band) which is great for discrimination and the narrow beam allows the seeker to see farther and as a result begin to use its seeker earlier in the intercept phase when it can communicate with the primary sensor via improved data-links. This gives the weapon a better chance to be at the right place at the right time to complete the intercept as all these things by themselves or combined eliminate errors that creep in during long range cruise profiles/intercepts - errors that the weapon has to correct for in the end game and hence carry "margin" when it comes to kinematics/motor and warhead.

Next is the agility portion i.e. can you incorporate technologies such as thrust vectoring, advances flight controls or other things (say dozens of pulsed rocket motors as some missiles use) to make the missile more agile? Warhead sizing, type and modeling is part of that trade space and is not an independent variable but something looked at during the systems analysis. Each of these elements comes to play when designers design a weapon against a particular threat type(s). You don't want to pay the cost of a weapon that carries a larger motor than required, more agility than required to carry out the intercept against a desired target set, and a larger or smaller warhead than what is required. Doing so results in penalty elsewhere (design weight, size, cost, complexity etc etc etc).

Well lets say Yefim Gorden disagrees with you , He clearly thinks that it effective for both just the range to target differs.

The link you have mentioned clearly states that it is not as agile when compared to other short and medium ranged weapons. Similarly they claim that they can intercept targets that can maneuver up to 8Gs. Is this the same level of agility and target performance the R-77 can handle? If so, is the R-77 incapable of successfully intercepting 9G+ aircraft? If not, why is there a difference b/w these two weapons?

Does the missile really have to pull 9G to take on a 9G target ?

Way More Gs under most intercept scenarios (unless you obtain speed parity in which case the aircraft can simply run away). Air to Air missiles aren't designed to be able to pull 40 or more Gs for fun's sake but because it is required. If you loft the missile higher and use a second pulse to accelerate it further while also gaining speed by trading altitude you will pull a huge gap between your velocity and that of your target. Fighter targets can offload fuel and weapons/pods etc and sustain b/w 7-9 Gs at a favorable altitude. There are fighters out there that can pull instantaneous Gs well beyond the 9G soft limit (Rafale can pull up to 10.5-11 Gs, Eurofigther around 10Gs, and F-35A has been tested to pull 9.9 Gs instantaneous). A missile will need to pull many times that amount if it has to turn with the aircraft and since it can't throttle unlike a fighter, even the instantaneous abilities matter.

[sum]

P.Sengupta says that Dr Cristopher has confrmed in FORCE Sep issue that 13 Turbofans were built in country and 3 were extensively tested and he claims the one which powered the Nirbhay was this:
Intech DMLS launches India's first indigenously developed jet engines

Interesting. Where does this Sengupta say this..? any Link..?

The impression I got from the marketing guy of Poer Jet when I talked to him in AI 17 was that the bigger engines are still a bit into future. They were working only on the smallest one. It would be rather impressive if they are already putting engines on Nirbhay.

JayS saar,

he has stated so in his blog in comments section. This is his latest comment on the same Q again raised by someone:

Why did you post the interview of February 2017 when I had clearly stated that Dr Christopher's interview of August 2017 should be read? Do you have any difficulty with the English language (LoLz!)? Furthermore, can you state with certainty that Dr Christopher is a licensed aeronautical engineer or a missile dersigner & is therefore fully in the know about missiles like Nirbhay? In fact, when it was brought to his notice by me that his observations on Nirbhay's powerplant in the February 2017 issue were DEAD WRONG, he was given the chance to correct his mistakes in the August 2017 issue of FORCE. I have already uploaded above the page containing the August 2017 interview where he corrected his earlier mistake. And the ADE's brochure itself states that Nirbhay is turbofan-powered & I had uploaded it before here:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0meq9OGlEwc/ ... Poster.jpg

Lastly, anyone with respect for the laws of physics will realise that turbojets are used primarily for tactical cruise missiles, while turbofans have been developed & used for long-range cruise missiles since the 1990s. Despite all this wealth of available data (including Dr Christopher's June 2017 interview), if you still cling to the belief that Nirbhay is turbohet-powered, then you definitely are living in a state of self-defeating denial!

[Indranil]

He says a lot of stuff

[Eric Leiderman]

http://idrw.org/ministry-of-defence-scr ... ore-154292

India scraps SPIKE deal gives development of a manportable ant tank missile to RDO, With an approx. timespan for development 3-4 years.

Accuracy of above to be determined.

[Pratyush]

Yes yes and yes happy beyond words.

[Prem]

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... =Dailyhunt

Asking the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to indigenously develop and produce a Man-Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) for the Army, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has decided to cancel the $500 million deal for Spike ATGM with Israel. The deal, seen as another proof of growing Indo-Israel defence cooperation, was expected to be signed after price negotiations with Rafael Advanced Defence Systems of Israel were completed last year.In anticipation of this deal, Rafael had entered into a joint venture with Kalyani group for missile production in India. The missile sub-systems manufacturing facility, based near Hyderabad, was inaugurated in August.Ministry sources told The Indian Express that the decision to cancel the deal was based on the consideration that importing a foreign ATGM at this stage would adversely impact the programme for indigenous development of the weapon system by DRDO. Earlier, India had also rejected an offer from US-based Raytheon-Lockheed Martin for Javelin ATGM in favour of the Israeli weapon system.“DRDO has successfully produced the Nag and Anamika ATGMs. It is confident about providing the Army with an MPATGM of 3rd generation missile technology, at par with Spike, within three to four years. It won’t also need any transfer of technology,” sources said.

[Yagnasri]

Anamika??? My mango ears have not heard of it.

[suryag]

DRDO can easily pull this off, given the seeker is most likely going to be a port from the Nag except for winter-summer-monsoon song and dance routines

[pankajs]

With this move GOI is signalling that we are over the hump as far as the relevant technology is concerned. This is good news indeed.

[Pratyush]

DRDO can easily pull this off, given the seeker is most likely going to be a port from the Nag except for winter-summer-monsoon song and dance routines

Even that is a solved issue. As it can lock on to the enemy tanks at 3.2 km in the most testing environment. So that is not an issue. The only question remains is it's ability to deal with cold of minus 50 degrees.

[A Deshmukh]

not sure if size would be a challenge. Can the seeker currently on Nag/Namica be ported into MPATGM?

[Aditya_V]

Manportable fire and forget ATgm's will be a game changer North of Zojila Pass, Having numbers and taking out Key Paki posts will be very useful to then target their supply nodes with line of sight.

[JayS]

Interesting. Where does this Sengupta say this..? any Link..?

The impression I got from the marketing guy of Poer Jet when I talked to him in AI 17 was that the bigger engines are still a bit into future. They were working only on the smallest one. It would be rather impressive if they are already putting engines on Nirbhay.

JayS saar,

he has stated so in his blog in comments section. This is his latest comment on the same Q again raised by someone:

Why did you post the interview of February 2017 when I had clearly stated that Dr Christopher's interview of August 2017 should be read? Do you have any difficulty with the English language (LoLz!)? Furthermore, can you state with certainty that Dr Christopher is a licensed aeronautical engineer or a missile dersigner & is therefore fully in the know about missiles like Nirbhay? In fact, when it was brought to his notice by me that his observations on Nirbhay's powerplant in the February 2017 issue were DEAD WRONG, he was given the chance to correct his mistakes in the August 2017 issue of FORCE. I have already uploaded above the page containing the August 2017 interview where he corrected his earlier mistake. And the ADE's brochure itself states that Nirbhay is turbofan-powered & I had uploaded it before here:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0meq9OGlEwc/ ... Poster.jpg

Lastly, anyone with respect for the laws of physics will realise that turbojets are used primarily for tactical cruise missiles, while turbofans have been developed & used for long-range cruise missiles since the 1990s. Despite all this wealth of available data (including Dr Christopher's June 2017 interview), if you still cling to the belief that Nirbhay is turbohet-powered, then you definitely are living in a state of self-defeating denial!

Dr Christopher is not a licensed aeronautical engineer or a missile designers, (whatever "licensed" means), but Sengupta is...?? He does have a big mouth. His tone makes me even more skeptical of whatever he is saying.

[nvishal]

On spike deal:

I'm not surprised. I had said back then that money does not grow on trees. There is no way for the Indian govt to buy everything. Earlier, the Indian media had made people believe that India was doing all three: 1) investing on local ATGM 2) buying spike 3) buying javelin

I had speculated then that choosing spike would force the contender(US - javelin) to have a "talk" with its ally(Israel - spike) about strategic imperatives.

I had said that only one will be selected.

-------

Now again, regarding fighter jets whose role is to defend Indian skies(these ones cannot cross the border), only one will be selected. With so much money already invested in Tejas and the Kaveri offset with the French, it points to one clear possibility. I also expect a few over the counter grippen purchase to make for the mig-21 that are ageing out of service. The tejas engine delay will also be a cause for more grippen purchase.

So next time you are worried and wondering whether India is going to buy Tejas, sukhoi, f16, f18, gripen etc etc - stop right there!! calm down and recite the GOLDEN RULE in defence procurement:

"Money does not grow on trees"

repeat 100x

[Kashi]

If the news about Spike deal is correct, then GoI must be completely and undoubtedly confident that we WILL have a suitable man portable product very soon.

[PratikDas]

Anamika??? My mango ears have not heard of it.

Probably DDM.

NAMICA (Nag Missile Carrier) is a tank destroyer built for the army. It is equipped with a thermal imager for target acquisition. NAMICA is a modified BMP-2 IFV produced as "Sarath" in India.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_(missile)#Namica

[abhik]

Seems like GoI is finally waking up from a deep slumber. Questioning the single engine fighter, cancelling the man portable SAM and now ATGM in favor of local developments.

[A Deshmukh]

Seems like GoI is finally waking up from a deep slumber. cancelling the man portable SAM

When did this happen?

[Karan M]

Interesting. Where does this Sengupta say this..? any Link..?

The impression I got from the marketing guy of Poer Jet when I talked to him in AI 17 was that the bigger engines are still a bit into future. They were working only on the smallest one. It would be rather impressive if they are already putting engines on Nirbhay.

JayS saar,

he has stated so in his blog in comments section. This is his latest comment on the same Q again raised by someone:

Why did you post the interview of February 2017 when I had clearly stated that Dr Christopher's interview of August 2017 should be read? Do you have any difficulty with the English language (LoLz!)? Furthermore, can you state with certainty that Dr Christopher is a licensed aeronautical engineer or a missile dersigner & is therefore fully in the know about missiles like Nirbhay? In fact, when it was brought to his notice by me that his observations on Nirbhay's powerplant in the February 2017 issue were DEAD WRONG, he was given the chance to correct his mistakes in the August 2017 issue of FORCE. I have already uploaded above the page containing the August 2017 interview where he corrected his earlier mistake. And the ADE's brochure itself states that Nirbhay is turbofan-powered & I had uploaded it before here:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0meq9OGlEwc/ ... Poster.jpg

Lastly, anyone with respect for the laws of physics will realise that turbojets are used primarily for tactical cruise missiles, while turbofans have been developed & used for long-range cruise missiles since the 1990s. Despite all this wealth of available data (including Dr Christopher's June 2017 interview), if you still cling to the belief that Nirbhay is turbohet-powered, then you definitely are living in a state of self-defeating denial!

What a pompous buffoon this chap is. Not one iota of real world insight and he claims he knows better than the head of R&D, who receives classified briefings from the actual missile teams. And Dr Christopher is the real deal, an actual scientist and developer not some bhompoo like this chap - hilarious to see him pompously ask for credentials.

[shiv]

Is chorgupta being discussed? He's like dog poop thinking that people are worshipping it because they walk around it carefully. Do people even take this nincompoop seriously? He represents all that is wrong with Indian defence reporting

[Kersi]

But I have a query. When do we see a large numbers of Nags (or Anamika or whatever-you-call-it) in Indian Army, Indian Air Force and why not the Indian Navy

[JayS]

But I have a query. When do we see a large numbers of Nags (or Anamika or whatever-you-call-it) in Indian Army, Indian Air Force and why not the Indian Navy

What for..?

[shiv]

To puncture water tanks?

[JayS]

Seems like GoI is finally waking up from a deep slumber. cancelling the man portable SAM

When did this happen?

He means VSHORAD perhaps.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 556697.ece

Two of the three OEMs in fray have failed in trials. I think this RFI also gone for a toss now.

[A Deshmukh]

When did this happen?

He means VSHORAD perhaps.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 556697.ece
Two of the three OEMs in fray have failed in trials. I think this RFI also gone for a toss now.

vshorad 3/3 had failed earlier. now it is 2/3.
Resultant single vendor is not the same single vendor situation. Contracting can still go ahead.
I think the problem is the remaining vendor is using outdated technology. (any technology will get outdated, by the time the contract is awarded ).

[JayS]

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... =Dailyhunt

Asking the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to indigenously develop and produce a Man-Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) for the Army, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has decided to cancel the $500 million deal for Spike ATGM with Israel. The deal, seen as another proof of growing Indo-Israel defence cooperation, was expected to be signed after price negotiations with Rafael Advanced Defence Systems of Israel were completed last year.In anticipation of this deal, Rafael had entered into a joint venture with Kalyani group for missile production in India. The missile sub-systems manufacturing facility, based near Hyderabad, was inaugurated in August.Ministry sources told The Indian Express that the decision to cancel the deal was based on the consideration that importing a foreign ATGM at this stage would adversely impact the programme for indigenous development of the weapon system by DRDO. Earlier, India had also rejected an offer from US-based Raytheon-Lockheed Martin for Javelin ATGM in favour of the Israeli weapon system.“DRDO has successfully produced the Nag and Anamika ATGMs. It is confident about providing the Army with an MPATGM of 3rd generation missile technology, at par with Spike, within three to four years. It won’t also need any transfer of technology,” sources said.

Let me point out something from this article:

Price negotiations between Rafael and the MoD started in March 2015. After the prices were finalised in June 2016, then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar constituted an experts committee to review the evaluation report and explore the possibility of an indigenous missile system.

Anyone can throw some light on where exactly this step to look for possibility of desi equivalent system comes exactly..? I know its there somewhere in the whole process. But it should come before RFP. With RFI you acquire the info of available options and then there should be an attempt to see possibility to develop similar system (In ideal world the requirement should have been projected a decade before and work on desi solution should have started, but lets ignore that for this case.). Here it seems, after everything is done, even price negotiation (which is just a step before final signature of contract AFAIK), MP started the process of looking for possibility of developing desi solution. That's absurd. Is this how DPP prescribe is to be done..? Or something else might have triggered it..?

[JayS]

Turns out the news might be fake/wrong after all. The Israelis are in denial of cancellation. Urgh... Or may be Israelis didn't get the memo still..

[abhik]

@JayS an equally important is who asks the question about desi equivalent. Is it expected of the clueless politico/babu or the import pasand jernails?

[JayS]

@JayS an equally important is who asks the question about desi equivalent. Is it expected of the clueless politico/babu or the import pasand jernails?

MP was no clueless politico by any standard. This happened under his watch, by his order, if (which is a big if) we take the article at face value. And thus I am wondering.

[abhik]

Turns out the news might be fake/wrong after all. The Israelis are in denial of cancellation. Urgh... Or may be Israelis didn't get the memo still..

Well according to Russian sources the FGFA contract is on the verge of being signed (for the past few years).