Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:14

Because the seeker FOV and radar FOV need not be the same. A SAM can look down into a valley but its firing radar cannot.

A CLOS missile has to be in the radar sight.

An ARH can maneuver independent of the ground control system. It acquires a target it can continue to pursue even if the diving target gets into a valley where the ground control loses sight.

A SAM sized ARH also avoids the biggest limitation of most AAMs, limited battery size limiting the number of seconds the seeker can be active.

Austin wrote:How would an active seeker help in hilly areas if the ARH seeker itself is not able to lock on to target and that number does not extended in few single digit and few larger seeker can go into double digit and depends on target in question , there are many variables to consider in this equation for active seeker to work effectively.

For 80 % of the times the missile is still guided and dependent by its ground based radar and is dependent on target getting tracked by them to provide MCG only the last few km is taken over by active seeker.

Another things to consider Jam resistance is better provided by Ground based radar then the small active seeker with limited power and ECM capability of the missile

Cost effective wise a SARH seeker would work best for most scenario , they can always improve on SARH guidance by going for advanced SAGG or TVM type perhaps they might have done already who knows , These are just advanced form of SARH guidance.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 19:21

Austin wrote:Compared to command guidance of Akash , SARH is one generation ahead because Missile seeker operating SARH mode and receives reflected energy from the target. The data received is then datalinked to the guidance station on the ground, which formulates the guidance commands and sends them back to the missile.

Austin I don't think SARH works by detecting reflected radar signals, sending them to ground station and receiving guidance commands.

The target is illuminated from source (ground or AWACS) and the returns are picked up by the SARH seeker and the missile homes in autonomously without guidance from ground/AWACS.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:27

ARH need not be in the same direction or alignment per se, the reason being the seeker only needs "coarse" directions for its seeker to uncage and provide precise details to the missile. With 2 way datalink the seeker information can be compared by the FCR below to ensure the seeker is not jammed and is still working well. With Rajendra FCR + ARH i believe we have a winning (albeit heavy and hence not as mobile as other systems) anti-ECM solution.
Provided they choose to implement it. A FCR designed to be very hard to jam and hence able to guide the missile very close, plus a powerful ARH for flexibility and fire & forget (if need be).


tsarkar wrote:
Gagan wrote:Isn't command guidance limited to Line of sight only?
Would this not be an issue if deployed in hilly areas?

No, the command guidance can be carefully aligned. It can ensure that missile guidance beams are not in the same alignment as the missile trajectory. Missiles like Seawolf & Barak1 use Command Guidance for this reason.

In ARH & SARH, the missile guidance beams are in the same direction and alignment as the missile, so easier to jam. Its very difficult to jam command guidance.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 19:29

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Compared to command guidance of Akash , SARH is one generation ahead because Missile seeker operating SARH mode and receives reflected energy from the target. The data received is then datalinked to the guidance station on the ground, which formulates the guidance commands and sends them back to the missile.

Austin I don't think SARH works by detecting reflected radar signals, sending them to ground station and receiving guidance commands.

The target is illuminated from source (ground or AWACS) and the returns are picked up by the SARH seeker and the missile homes in autonomously without guidance from ground/AWACS.


AFAIK SARH needs guidance from ground , The only difference SARH is you have a seeker closer to target and you can compute a far accurate data on target. SARH has evolved into advanced variant called TVM ( Track Via Missile ) and SAGG ( Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance )

Long time back I had posted on BRF posting it once again on a discussion we had with SOC
SAGG is Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance. Here's the short version. In TVM, which is sort of a cross-breed between Command and SARH guidance, the missile seeker antenna acts as a receiver, picking up reflected energy from the target. Position data is then datalinked to the engagement radar, which crunches the numbers and decides where to point the missile to keep chasing the target. Guidance commands then get datalinked back to the missile, and off it goes. SAGG is a bit more complicated, and potentially more accurate as a result. In SAGG, the engagement radar paints the target, and both the missile and the radar receive target returns. The missile actually computes a guidance command, and datalinks this to the radar. The radar, having a different POV, computes its own guidance command. Then the computers crunch the numbers, comparing the two sets of commands, and decides the best course to the target. This final guidance command is then sent back to the missile. In SAGG, you basically have smarter missiles. This is also a sort of ECCM, in a way. If a jamming pod is pointed at the engagement radar, confusing its perception of the engagement, the option exists to ignore that return, and rely solely on the missile seeker head's return to calculate the guidance command. Why can this work? If the jammer is obscured by the body of the aircraft, as podded systems usually are, then a missile like the 5V55R or 48N6 which approaches from above can still get a clear picture of the target in some cases. Ergo, you think you're jamming it, but in reality you're still going to be dead.

SAGG isn't really all that different from TVM, but it's sufficiently different enough that when I was in the USAF, we always differentiated it from pure TVM. SAGG, GAS/GAI (ground-aided seeker/inertial, this is employed in midcourse by the S-300V) and TVM were all considered to be forms of what we referred to as combined guidance, as they combine elements of command and SARH guidance methods. A further advantage of SAGG is that if you can get a 64N6 or 36D6 to paint the target using a waveform recognizeable by the missile seeker, you might be able to still blow stuff up if you lose your engagement radar.
Last edited by Austin on 06 Dec 2017 19:30, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:29

You are correct. What Austin is describing is the follow on to SARH called TVM (Track via missile) where the seeker datalinks the received data back to the ground based system which compares the data & then commands it. This is the kind of system on Russian S-3XX SAMs, making them hard to jam.


shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Compared to command guidance of Akash , SARH is one generation ahead because Missile seeker operating SARH mode and receives reflected energy from the target. The data received is then datalinked to the guidance station on the ground, which formulates the guidance commands and sends them back to the missile.

Austin I don't think SARH works by detecting reflected radar signals, sending them to ground station and receiving guidance commands.

The target is illuminated from source (ground or AWACS) and the returns are picked up by the SARH seeker and the missile homes in autonomously without guidance from ground/AWACS.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:32

SARH just works on reflected radar energy. The Sparrow, AA-10 etc all use this principle. A powerful FCR (air based or ground based) just soaks the target in RF and the missile seeker then uses that to home in.
SARH alone seekers are not considered very effective.

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Austin I don't think SARH works by detecting reflected radar signals, sending them to ground station and receiving guidance commands.

The target is illuminated from source (ground or AWACS) and the returns are picked up by the SARH seeker and the missile homes in autonomously without guidance from ground/AWACS.


AFAIK SARH needs guidance from ground , The only difference SARH is you have a seeker closer to target and you can compute a far accurate data on target. SARH has evolved into advanced variant called TVM ( Track Via Missile ) and SAGG ( Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance )

Long time back I had posted on BRF posting it once again
SAGG is Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance. Here's the short version. In TVM, which is sort of a cross-breed between Command and SARH guidance, the missile seeker antenna acts as a receiver, picking up reflected energy from the target. Position data is then datalinked to the engagement radar, which crunches the numbers and decides where to point the missile to keep chasing the target. Guidance commands then get datalinked back to the missile, and off it goes. SAGG is a bit more complicated, and potentially more accurate as a result. In SAGG, the engagement radar paints the target, and both the missile and the radar receive target returns. The missile actually computes a guidance command, and datalinks this to the radar. The radar, having a different POV, computes its own guidance command. Then the computers crunch the numbers, comparing the two sets of commands, and decides the best course to the target. This final guidance command is then sent back to the missile. In SAGG, you basically have smarter missiles. This is also a sort of ECCM, in a way. If a jamming pod is pointed at the engagement radar, confusing its perception of the engagement, the option exists to ignore that return, and rely solely on the missile seeker head's return to calculate the guidance command. Why can this work? If the jammer is obscured by the body of the aircraft, as podded systems usually are, then a missile like the 5V55R or 48N6 which approaches from above can still get a clear picture of the target in some cases. Ergo, you think you're jamming it, but in reality you're still going to be dead.

SAGG isn't really all that different from TVM, but it's sufficiently different enough that when I was in the USAF, we always differentiated it from pure TVM. SAGG, GAS/GAI (ground-aided seeker/inertial, this is employed in midcourse by the S-300V) and TVM were all considered to be forms of what we referred to as combined guidance, as they combine elements of command and SARH guidance methods. A further advantage of SAGG is that if you can get a 64N6 or 36D6 to paint the target using a waveform recognizeable by the missile seeker, you might be able to still blow stuff up if you lose your engagement radar.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 19:35

BrahMos missiles may reach speeds of 3.5 mach in two years: CEO Mishra

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 983336.ece

BrahMos missiles, which has been jointly developed by India and Russia, could reach a speed of 3.5 mach in two years, from the current speed of 2.8 mach, according to Sudhir Mishra, MD and CEO of BrahMos Aerospace.


Mach is a unit for measuring the speed of sound.

Mishra was interacting with the media on the sidelines of a Godrej Aerospace event here on Tuesday.

He said in four years, the speed could even reach 5 mach, which could be attained by optimising the materials and engines of the missiles. But beyond 5 mach the present engine of BrahMos cannot be used. It will require a scramjet (supersonic combustion) engine, which needs seven to ten years to develop.

Today, BrahMos missiles travel 2.8 times faster than the speed of sound. They have been developed by BrahMos Aerospace, a joint venture between Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) of India and NPO Mashinostroyenia of Russia.

Mishra said BrahMos Aerospace is already working for developing a scramjet. For developing scramjet engines, newer materials would be required, which could withstand ultra-high speeds and vibrations. After 10 years, the fruits of BrahMos Aerospace’s efforts would be known. The scramjet engine is being developed by BrahMos independently but some joint collaborations with Russians industry are also being made.


At Godrej Aerospace event, BrahMos Aerospace was handed over the 100th set of airframe assemblies for use in BraMmos missile systems. The airframe assembly is a part of the fuel management systems of the missile. It is manufactured by Godrej Aerospace, a unit of Godrej & Boyce.

BrahMos Aerospace has already placed orders for the next batch of 100 airframe assemblies, which gets manufactured at Godrej Group's industrial complex in Mumbai.

Chairman and Managing Director of Godrej & Boyce, Jamshyd Godrej said Godrej Aerospace is capable of making two frames a month and that capability would be soon doubled. It has taken 10 years for the company to develop the capabilities, manpower and equipment for making missile components, which is a very complex task.

The company is in the process of scaling up its operations, which does not require more investments for machinery. But additional manpower needs to be added. The company is looking at organising itself to deliver more on the assembly line.
The investment phase for the company is over, now it is production phase, he said.

Godrej Aerospace has been associated with BrahMos programme since its inception in 2001.
Last edited by ramana on 06 Dec 2017 23:11, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Highlighted the timeline and production capability at Godrej. ramana

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:36

Exactly.

Where is this talk coming of semi-active seeker today, when we already have ARH seekers available, I don't understand.


Aditya_V wrote:Saurau Jha never said Akhash 1S has passive seeker, he said Akash NG has Active seeker, dual pulse motor etc. Having an active seeker means one can reduce the 55KG warhead weight of Akash to a smaller warhead with greater range.

55KG warhead with command guidance was chosen since the warhead blast effect(against Aircraft/cruise Missiles/Helis) can be effective for 20 meters radius to make up for slight inaccuracies/target maneuvering in the last minute.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 06 Dec 2017 19:37

Does this mean we have manufactured only 100 Brahmos missiles till now ?

Godrej Aerospace delivers 100th set of BrahMos airframe assemblies. Here's BrahMos CEO at a ceremony with Godrej & Boyce CMD Jamshyd N. Godrej. (Godrej to also build 100 units of air-launched BrahMos-A).

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/937985902671884288

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 19:37

IF the present Ramjet engine can be optimised to attain a top speed of Mach 5 that would itself be a first in the world achievement......No one has every done Mach 5 on Ramjet much less on an operational missile m, M 5 which is beginning of hypersonic speed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 19:38

ashishvikas wrote:Does this mean we have manufactured only 100 Brahmos missiles till now ?

Godrej Aerospace delivers 100th set of BrahMos airframe assemblies. Here's BrahMos CEO at a ceremony with Godrej & Boyce CMD Jamshyd N. Godrej. (Godrej to also build 100 units of air-launched BrahMos-A).

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/937985902671884288

At least 100

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 19:40

Ashish, many of the Brahmos items may have been initially imported from Russia. The number of inducted missiles is quite likely, higher.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Bart S » 06 Dec 2017 19:57

Is there any possibility of us indigenizing the engine for the Brahmos missile in the future, perhaps with the newer iterations? Or does Russia continue to have a chokehold on that aspect?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 20:10

Karan M wrote:You are correct. What Austin is describing is the follow on to SARH called TVM (Track via missile) where the seeker datalinks the received data back to the ground based system which compares the data & then commands it. This is the kind of system on Russian S-3XX SAMs, making them hard to jam.


The current state of the art beyond the TVM/SAGG concepts is to introduce interleaving of both fully semi-active (CW or ICWI) and active modes into one fashioned seeker that can rely on both mother or third party radar, dedicated illuminators, prosecute a target in fully active fire and forget active mode or use a combination of these modes via either relying on third party data sent to the primary platform or using the highest quality data based on the scenario (clutter, altitude, ECM etc etc etc).

shiv wrote:The target is illuminated from source (ground or AWACS) and the returns are picked up by the SARH seeker and the missile homes in autonomously without guidance from ground/AWACS.


The transmitter and the receiver need to be in band hence you will require a high frequency source since the missile diameter dictates the seeker frequency selection.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Dec 2017 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2017 20:30

^^ Logical and makes absolute sense. They should add an IIR channel as well for true-multi spectral performance.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 20:37

Karan M wrote:^^ Logical and makes absolute sense. They should add an IIR channel as well for true-multi spectral performance.


IIR channels already exist out there. SM2 IIIB/IVA and Stunner have/had RF/IIR (although only the former is really designed for the challenging AAW mission with Stunner is for low end TBM and cruise missile defense mostly) and the SM2 upgrade will feature the seeker concept mentioned earlier in combination with the existing IIR channel already on the missiles if they task the complete mission set to it via the upgrade. They will simply swap out the ICWI reliant SARH RF seeker and add a multi-mode one, likely using a scaled up ESSM BlK II seeker. On a pure RF level the SM6 is already operational using the seeker concept I described earlier and the ESSM Blk. II will be operational over the next couple of years. With increasing data-link fidelity guidance concepts have to balance out organic and third party assistance in overcoming ECM. There may be ways to make seekers and guidance less complicated by removing the need for multiple expensive items if you can have outside assistance help out. This way networking helps you reduce system complexity and cost allowing you to field more weapons.

Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10754
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gagan » 06 Dec 2017 20:53

shiv wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Does this mean we have manufactured only 100 Brahmos missiles till now ?

Godrej Aerospace delivers 100th set of BrahMos airframe assemblies. Here's BrahMos CEO at a ceremony with Godrej & Boyce CMD Jamshyd N. Godrej. (Godrej to also build 100 units of air-launched BrahMos-A).

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/937985902671884288

At least 100

They might have outsourced part of the body structure to a private player. BRAHMOS corp has always said that they have ancillaries as suppliers.
This report neither suggests that this was the first ever order for Godrej.
They are building missiles for more than 5 years.

The rumoured stock is about 400 missile strong already
There is talk of a second production line

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 21:05

Gagan wrote:
shiv wrote:At least 100

They might have outsourced part of the body structure to a private player. BRAHMOS corp has always said that they have ancillaries as suppliers.
This report neither suggests that this was the first ever order for Godrej.
They are building missiles for more than 5 years.

The rumoured stock is about 400 missile strong already
There is talk of a second production line


Just 400? Number seems a bit low. We’ve been building these missiles for what, ten+ years now?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10754
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gagan » 06 Dec 2017 21:12

That is only a very rough estimate
Flawed as it might be, I’ll share this post from quora by a poster from Mumbai who tries to address this very question. This is circa mid 2016

https://www.quora.com/How-much-brahmos- ... k-in-India

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 22:12

Arun.prabhu wrote:
Just 400? Number seems a bit low. We’ve been building these missiles for what, ten+ years now?

400 is low? I doubt if we have that many Prithvis or even Paveway type Laser guidance kits or Harpoons or Excocets or Russki AShMs (KH something)

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1400
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby srin » 06 Dec 2017 22:21

Karan M wrote:SARH just works on reflected radar energy. The Sparrow, AA-10 etc all use this principle. A powerful FCR (air based or ground based) just soaks the target in RF and the missile seeker then uses that to home in.
SARH alone seekers are not considered very effective.


There is one more issue with SARH: The target needs constant illumination, which renders the radar vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles from the target.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby srai » 06 Dec 2017 22:32

Arun.prabhu wrote:
Gagan wrote:They might have outsourced part of the body structure to a private player. BRAHMOS corp has always said that they have ancillaries as suppliers.
This report neither suggests that this was the first ever order for Godrej.
They are building missiles for more than 5 years.

The rumoured stock is about 400 missile strong already
There is talk of a second production line


Just 400? Number seems a bit low. We’ve been building these missiles for what, ten+ years now?

You can get an estimate by looking at induction of 3-to-4 IA Brahmos missile regiments (72 missiles/regiment) and number of IN ships compatible with Brahmos, which is around 12 ships at this point.

The IAF has an intent of around 200 air-launched units for 40 modified Su-30MKI. Production hasn't started on this yet.

Also important to note, new variants of Brahmos Mk.1/2/3/4 have been inducted in that 10-years you are referring to. It's not just mass producing one version per se.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 842
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Mihir » 06 Dec 2017 23:01

Karan, my guess is that the SARH seeker makes it easier to upgrade the batteries that have already been deployed. You could swap out the seekers in existing missiles and still use the remaining support systems. Also, it's likely enough for a 25 km range missile. For an Astra that needs to hit targets 60+ km out, an active seeker makes more sense.

Aditya and Rakesh, Saurav didn't specifically state it, but he did imply it. "Wait until you see the Akash NG with an active seeker", to me, implies that the 1S has a passive seeker.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 23:18

No war reserves then?

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 23:20

shiv wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:
Just 400? Number seems a bit low. We’ve been building these missiles for what, ten+ years now?

400 is low? I doubt if we have that many Prithvis or even Paveway type Laser guidance kits or Harpoons or Excocets or Russki AShMs (KH something)


Yes, it is. Our likely opposition are Pakistan and China. Our inventory needs to support a war that lasts about a month or so for a short affair or a years long bloodbath for a long one. 400 is entirely too inadequate.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 06 Dec 2017 23:24

An old report from IDRW

...DRDO has also undertaken the development of Akash Mk-1S as a Technological Demonstrator to prove the upgradability of Akash Mk-1 missile with RF seeker through necessary modification/retro fitment on the existing missiles.....


Says -1S is a step towards -NG.

I think if this -1S is proven, then it can be retrofitted on existing and new build to improve the lethality while -NG can be the follow-on.

SARH is a definite plus over CG Akash.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 06 Dec 2017 23:27

Arun. Prabhu, The system has equipped three regiments and quite a few ships.
tsarkar and others can tell how much reserve for these.
And these are operational units. Not paper formations.
they know what they need.
Lets not beat up already hardworking oxen with out demand or requirements.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 06 Dec 2017 23:29

brar_w,
Let humble SDRE Indics celebrate the little successes they achieve without bringing how inadequate it is compared to a super power with a $24 T national debt.

We have the US weapons thread for showcasing that.

8)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 23:31

Ramana, someone else brought up TVM and SAGG which are different from command guidance and I merely pointed out that guidance has evolved since the 80's and 90's when these concepts were developed and that the ARH concept being spoken about is more advanced and opens up other possibilities down the road.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Dec 2017 23:34, edited 2 times in total.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 23:33

ramana wrote:Arun. Prabhu, The system has equipped three regiments and quite a few ships.
tsarkar and others can tell how much reserve for these.
And these are operational units. Not paper formations.
they know what they need.
Lets not beat up already hardworking oxen with out demand or requirements.


I did not wonder about reserves because this is an open forum. But here we are. Perhaps I should have just shut up and kept my thoughts on the 400 number to myself. :)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:10

Mihir, that's the thing - it wont make things easier, but harder, because you will need far more changes to the FCR and developing a SARH seeker in parallel with an ARH, even if an ARH is far more flexible?

Saurav's comment seems to be more about Akash NG per se. Not the active seeker.

The seeker being active does not have to do with range alone, it has to do with survivability as well. An ARH is fire and forget (especially at the range we are talking of) and allows more rounds per target, the SARH is illuminator based, and forces a FCR lock onto the target.

Now look at this, from Pandit as to why IA initially rejected Akash and then accepted the Akash1 S:

"Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage, nor the 3-4 second reaction time the Army wants. Moreover, Akash has a large radar ground signature with several vehicles required for its missile launchers, multi-function radars and the like," said a source.


1. 360 degree coverage issue - can be enhanced with ARH capability (you dont need 4 FCRs pointing constantly in 4 areas)
2. Reaction time - much faster, as a coarse surveillance beam can guide the missile in and the ARH comes in
3. Large ground signature - again, this is linked to the CLOS guidance. None of this is helped with SARH! SARH = CLOS in signature as FCR guidance all the way is essential.

The IA then chose the Israeli option citing the above. Israeli option has a) ARH equipped and IIR equipped missiles. b ) Only one surveillance radar for the missiles (low footprint) c ) Thermal/CCD vision with an EO/LRF based optical system for jamming conditions.

Then this is what happened.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/make ... 64717.html

The case for acquiring Short Range Surface to Air Missiles (SRSAMs) was taken up for discussion during the DAC meeting where the government had to decide whether to go for a foreign missile system or the Akash surface to air missile systems. Jaitley went on for the indigenous option, sources said.

Top army sources confirmed that the force would be utilising the Akash missiles for protection against the incoming aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles of the adversaries as the system would be deployed on both the Pakistan and China border. Sources said there were a few specific systems and equipment available on the foreign system that were asked for by the army for the missile system which DRDO assured would be provided.


So, in my view DRDO would have added the RF seeker (hence Akash 1S) and also likely this (https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/20 ... b2016.pdf; clearly mentioned for Akash NG as well, but note report is from last year, before Akash 1S was launched)

Now add this to the recent report:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/make ... 02047.html

SR-SAM project for the Army (expected cost Rs 20,000 crore): Under this programme, the Army wanted to buy missiles from global vendors in Russia, Israel and Sweden. The force demanded that they want a system in which the missile should have a sensor to track and target the incoming missiles accurately. The DRDO then offered its latest version of Akash missile with an indigenous sensor. The project was accepted, and the then defence minister Arun Jaitley scrapped the global tender.


Hence, in my view the Akash 1S = Akash with a new ARH seeker (and probably the SEOS) but rest remains same, capabilities increase though.
Akash NG is completely new architecture intended for an ARH deployment with newer AESA radars, smaller footprint, ARH seeker, SEOS . New missile design etc etc etc.

Mihir wrote:Karan, my guess is that the SARH seeker makes it easier to upgrade the batteries that have already been deployed. You could swap out the seekers in existing missiles and still use the remaining support systems. Also, it's likely enough for a 25 km range missile. For an Astra that needs to hit targets 60+ km out, an active seeker makes more sense.

Aditya and Rakesh, Saurav didn't specifically state it, but he did imply it. "Wait until you see the Akash NG with an active seeker", to me, implies that the 1S has a passive seeker.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:13

Completely agree, and I have mentioned that several times in my posts above. However, they are long and hence the point may have got lost in them. To summarize, you are absolutely right and the survivability aspect really is the biggest argument for independent seeker equipped missiles. ARH missiles can range as well while IIR ones cannot and hence the latter often need a ground based sensor for intermittent ranging.

srin wrote:
Karan M wrote:SARH just works on reflected radar energy. The Sparrow, AA-10 etc all use this principle. A powerful FCR (air based or ground based) just soaks the target in RF and the missile seeker then uses that to home in.
SARH alone seekers are not considered very effective.


There is one more issue with SARH: The target needs constant illumination, which renders the radar vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles from the target.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:14

Thanks for the details. Given Indian advancements, I presume it would make logical sense for DRDO to advance down this path as they would be tracking WW developments closely. The local IIR arrays can't come soon enough!

brar_w wrote:
Karan M wrote:^^ Logical and makes absolute sense. They should add an IIR channel as well for true-multi spectral performance.


IIR channels already exist out there. SM2 IIIB/IVA and Stunner have/had RF/IIR (although only the former is really designed for the challenging AAW mission with Stunner is for low end TBM and cruise missile defense mostly) and the SM2 upgrade will feature the seeker concept mentioned earlier in combination with the existing IIR channel already on the missiles if they task the complete mission set to it via the upgrade. They will simply swap out the ICWI reliant SARH RF seeker and add a multi-mode one, likely using a scaled up ESSM BlK II seeker. On a pure RF level the SM6 is already operational using the seeker concept I described earlier and the ESSM Blk. II will be operational over the next couple of years. With increasing data-link fidelity guidance concepts have to balance out organic and third party assistance in overcoming ECM. There may be ways to make seekers and guidance less complicated by removing the need for multiple expensive items if you can have outside assistance help out. This way networking helps you reduce system complexity and cost allowing you to field more weapons.

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 02:44

KaranM, Bear with me. Describing in my own language.

I think original Akash had command guidance which means all the target and missile radar data is fed to an onboard computer that steers the missile to the target.

The -1S has a semi active radar homing (SARH) sensor that senses the reflected radar energy from the target which is illuminated with ground radar and feeds this to the computer that steers the missile to the target.

-NG will have an active radar homing head sensor that will fine tune the target location with onboard radar signal and feeds to the computer that steers it. it will have other enhancements that will increase its kill probability.

So if Akash is 100, -1S will be 140 and -NG could be higher.

If the -NG+1 has IIR seeker also it will definitely be a world beater as it can take on low flying cruise or incoming high flying targets.

You think the ARH and IIR can have look up(high flying targets) or look down (Low flying targets) modes?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 05:01

Ramana sir, had sent a message earlier, it is stuck in outbox forever. Don't know what quirk of the system causes it. Long story short, I believe DRDO is all out focusing on ARH seekers and hence a SARH is very unlikely.
Original Akash had an ARH too. It was too large, performance was not great and it was costly, so they dropped it and made Akash pure CLOS. Now we are back to original schema.

ARH/IIR can definitely both have look up and look down capabilities. Its a mix of both hardware capability (sensitive seekers) and signal processing. Now, DRDO has managed to figure out the sea clutter issue & also implemented look down algorithms in naval radars vs sea skimmers, so i believe the core capability exists within the org, if relevant teams are talking to each other.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 05:30

Sjha wrote:f you think the Akash Mk-1S upgrade has been a long time coming, wait till you see @DRDO_India's Akash NG with an active RF seeker, laser proximity fuse and dual pulse solid propulsion and near 50 km max range.


Just a quick note on how subsystem development is crucial.
Active RF seeker: MMR -> BMD -> Astra
Laser Proximity fuse: Astra
Dual pulse solid propulsion: MRSAM

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10754
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gagan » 07 Dec 2017 05:48

srai wrote:The IAF has an intent of around 200 air-launched units for 40 modified Su-30MKI. Production hasn't started on this yet.

Minor nitpick srai ji
The IAF has deployed Land based Brahmos batteries.
There is a DD video where this is stated

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 06:33

KaranM, Got it.
Thanks.ramana

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 06:54

Arun.prabhu wrote:
shiv wrote:400 is low? I doubt if we have that many Prithvis or even Paveway type Laser guidance kits or Harpoons or Excocets or Russki AShMs (KH something)


Yes, it is. Our likely opposition are Pakistan and China. Our inventory needs to support a war that lasts about a month or so for a short affair or a years long bloodbath for a long one. 400 is entirely too inadequate.

I think the number should be seen in the context of how wars are fought and the resources that can be put to use in war.

I had posted the stats here long ago and can't recall exactly but in the Gulf war 80% of the bombs used by the US were dumb bombs. 20% smart/guided

In Kargil only 6 LGBs were used compared to thousands in dumb bombs.

I would expect that the dumb bomb to guided munition ration that the IAF would use is more like 50:1 rather than 4:1 like the US. The Brahmos is a precision guided missile with a specific application. It will never work against area targets. It will also be an utter waste if used against targets within 30-50 km of the border. So the Brahmos has a "range zone" and a "type of target" zone that it will be used for.

Remember that in theory just 20 Brahmos missiles can cripple an enemy navy. 30 Brahmos missiles can take out most radars and C&C centers in a given front. So they will be used judiciously and not like Pinaka.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 07 Dec 2017 11:09

Making "dumb bombs smart" is the key to cost-effective PG warfare. Since we've just tested the glide bomb which has an excellent given range,varieties could be developed to deal with area saturation,etc. ,which already exist in the dumb bomb category. This will effectively reduce the number fo sorties reqd. to deal with any enemy target ,and cost-effectively reduce stocks of DB munitions.Missiles like BMos,LRCMs like Nirbhay,etc. come at very high cost and even the US ran out of Tomahawks during GW-1.I agree with Shiv that we can't afford to 'waste" BMos ,etc. killing "cockroaches',when a simple "Smartie" could o the biz. Copyright on the "Smartie" folks! :rotfl:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, g.chaks, nandakumar, sgopal and 50 guests