Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

[JayS]

JayS, Are you funda aero guy? I have a question if so. If not will keep silent.

Shoot.

[ramana]

Ok.
Why did the Python fins flutter on the LCA even though the wing was strengthened for R 73?
And Python is good by itself on other aircraft.
Is it coupling? How?

Shows the importance of combined effects testing.

[ramana]

Second. Why was the Sudarshan LGB rolling when dropped from aircraft?
I think the combined c.g. was off axis and created a roll moment not anticipated.

[Indranil]

I will let JayS answer. And then I can answer afterwards.

[JayS]

Ok.
Why did the Python fins flutter on the LCA even though the wing was strengthened for R 73?
And Python is good by itself on other aircraft.
Is it coupling? How?

Shows the importance of combined effects testing.

The only authentic info I have on this is that Python has flutter issue when mounted on LCA. To me its clear case of aerodynamic interference between the wind underside and the missile or perhaps interference coming from neighboring store. First one is more likely IMO. Wing strength has no role to play in this. The interference is occurring either due to some kind of aero structure (e.g. vortex) from wing hitting the missile or the missile-pylon-wing neighborhood is of such peculiar shape that its causing buffet/flutter on its own. There can be many possibilities, not possible to pin-point anything more accurately that that the issue is related to interference, unless we can get hold of some CFD or experimental data through some research paper.

Yes, Its important to study the various configurations, precisely for this reason - interference. Generally the Interference drag on stores is more than the basic drag of the stores alone and sometimes it could be prohibitively large that certain configuration may not be usable. Even in civilian jets the engine-wing integration is an important task and it not trivial. Sometimes one has to apply area ruling in the neighborhood of the engine-wing or wing-store if there are shocks expected in the region. If you notice, earlier jet engines of 1960s were kept quite far from the wing LE, but now-a-days they are much bigger yet much closely coupled to the wing.

[JayS]

Second. Why was the Sudarshan LGB rolling when dropped from aircraft?
I think the combined c.g. was off axis and created a roll moment not anticipated.

I am not aware of this issue. Never really followed Sudarshan. Let me see if I can find some details on it. While its entirely possible that its was related to off-axis CG, I think it should have been rather easy to fix that. But let me get back on this.

PS: Do you happen to know, it the issue was systematic or random..? Always rolling in one direction irrespective of location on right or left wing..?

[Philip]

The F mag had a titbit about S-400s offered for us,being a generation ahead of the same that China is getting.The system would have two new improved SAMs as patr of it.Akash-1,Astra ,QRSAM and MR/LR SAM (B-8) are doing well,being inducted or on the cuspof being inducted.Details aslo about the desi PAD system,but it will take sev. years to fully perfect the same,hence the S-400 req.

[Zynda]

I am not aware of this issue. Never really followed Sudarshan. Let me see if I can find some details on it. While its entirely possible that its was related to off-axis CG, I think it should have been rather easy to fix that. But let me get back on this.

PS: Do you happen to know, it the issue was systematic or random..? Always rolling in one direction irrespective of location on right or left wing..?

JayS, this is a video of the test of the bomb release from Jag.



Notice how the bomb wobbles after release vs being steady. I guess Ramana was referring to the same.

IR, I guess you can try to pitch in your opinion as well in addition to JayS's.

[shiv]

The plane is also wobbling a lot..

[ramana]

Ok.
Why did the Python fins flutter on the LCA even though the wing was strengthened for R 73?
And Python is good by itself on other aircraft.
Is it coupling? How?

Shows the importance of combined effects testing.

The only authentic info I have on this is that Python has flutter issue when mounted on LCA. To me its clear case of aerodynamic interference between the wind underside and the missile or perhaps interference coming from neighboring store. First one is more likely IMO. Wing strength has no role to play in this. The interference is occurring either due to some kind of aero structure (e.g. vortex) from wing hitting the missile or the missile-pylon-wing neighborhood is of such peculiar shape that its causing buffet/flutter on its own. There can be many possibilities, not possible to pin-point anything more accurately that that the issue is related to interference, unless we can get hold of some CFD or experimental data through some research paper.

Yes, Its important to study the various configurations, precisely for this reason - interference. Generally the Interference drag on stores is more than the basic drag of the stores alone and sometimes it could be prohibitively large that certain configuration may not be usable. Even in civilian jets the engine-wing integration is an important task and it not trivial. Sometimes one has to apply area ruling in the neighborhood of the engine-wing or wing-store if there are shocks expected in the region. If you notice, earlier jet engines of 1960s were kept quite far from the wing LE, but now-a-days they are much bigger yet much closely coupled to the wing.

JayS, Thanks. I was flummoxed when they used the word 'flutter' when they meant vibrations. Clearly a case of impressive jargon by the 'source' and unquestioned usage by the reporter. "Calling things by right name is the beginning of wisdom!" said my drafting book on the chapter on Nomenclature.

Flutter is an aero-elastic phenomenon where the wing stiffness interacts with the air flow and vibrates. It has static and dynamic components. Bisplinghoff has the classic book on aero-elasticity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

Now that we know these are vibrations yes they are vortex driven. recall its at ~ Mach 0.8i.e. in the transition speed. It could be all those vortices hammering away at the fins which resonate. If disha recalls one of the GSLV cables trough for separation opened up due to vibration levels and disconnected.

Yes it has no relation to wing stiffness. Its vortex driven.

If we had the fin dimensions we can calculate the fundamental frequencies of the fins. Or just give a ping test to the missile in the lab.

Can the LCA fire the WVR only at the wing tip or at other stations on the wing?

[ramana]

Zynda, Thanks for the video.
Now that I see it again, the Sudharshan LGB drops tail first which means the Cg is aft or behind of the Cp despite all those fins and that CG roundel Is marked incorrectly. Other videos show it rolling or rotating which means its off-axis.

Interesting jugad and not a design.

[JayS]

The only authentic info I have on this is that Python has flutter issue when mounted on LCA. To me its clear case of aerodynamic interference between the wind underside and the missile or perhaps interference coming from neighboring store. First one is more likely IMO. Wing strength has no role to play in this. The interference is occurring either due to some kind of aero structure (e.g. vortex) from wing hitting the missile or the missile-pylon-wing neighborhood is of such peculiar shape that its causing buffet/flutter on its own. There can be many possibilities, not possible to pin-point anything more accurately that that the issue is related to interference, unless we can get hold of some CFD or experimental data through some research paper.

Yes, Its important to study the various configurations, precisely for this reason - interference. Generally the Interference drag on stores is more than the basic drag of the stores alone and sometimes it could be prohibitively large that certain configuration may not be usable. Even in civilian jets the engine-wing integration is an important task and it not trivial. Sometimes one has to apply area ruling in the neighborhood of the engine-wing or wing-store if there are shocks expected in the region. If you notice, earlier jet engines of 1960s were kept quite far from the wing LE, but now-a-days they are much bigger yet much closely coupled to the wing.

JayS, Thanks. I was flummoxed when they used the word 'flutter' when they meant vibrations. Clearly a case of impressive jargon by the 'source' and unquestioned usage by the reporter. "Calling things by right name is the beginning of wisdom!" said my drafting book on the chapter on Nomenclature.

Flutter is an aero-elastic phenomenon where the wing stiffness interacts with the air flow and vibrates. It has static and dynamic components. Bisplinghoff has the classic book on aero-elasticity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

Now that we know these are vibrations yes they are vortex driven. recall its at ~ Mach 0.8i.e. in the transition speed. It could be all those vortices hammering away at the fins which resonate. If disha recalls one of the GSLV cables trough for separation opened up due to vibration levels and disconnected.

Yes it has no relation to wing stiffness. Its vortex driven.

If we had the fin dimensions we can calculate the fundamental frequencies of the fins. Or just give a ping test to the missile in the lab.

Can the LCA fire the WVR only at the wing tip or at other stations on the wing?

OK I rechecked ADA AR-2015-16. It says:

Python-5 CCM was not fired as vibrations were experienced at 0.9 mach.

So we do not know whether its flutter, buffet or simple vibrations while the missile is underslung due to excessive carriage moments which the pylon attachments are not able to restrain. Reports by media cannot be trusted fully on such specific technical terminology. Perhaps Indranil knows more specific info.

[JayS]

Zynda, Thanks for the video.
Now that I see it again, the Sudharshan LGB drops tail first which means the Cg is aft or behind of the Cp despite all those fins and that CG roundel Is marked incorrectly. Other videos show it rolling or rotating which means its off-axis.

Interesting jugad and not a design.

I don't see tail first thing. It is dropped nose down. Then rolls on left and yaws. After a couple of seconds it goes unstable and starts tumbling. I think the initial roll and slight yaw is not an issue. It probably is intended (a banked coordinated turn) to clear it from inboard stores and the aircraft as a whole. But it just kept going. Could be unexpected bad aerodynamics, or could be failure of control system in maintaining attitude immediately after the separation, or both. But they did have successful trials of Sudarshan didn't they..?

I found this nice summary report on Store Integration. One of the AGARD reports. FYI, these NATO reports are very good source of info on Aero-Def topics.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA614607

I do not have time to read through it currently. Just skimmed through. Good overview of process of store integration, I thought.

I was reading another good report on store separation testing and simulation capabilities, yesterday night at home. Good overview of store separation intricacies and prediction/flight testing capabilities. Found interesting tidbit in it for GBU-32.
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA538155

However, Figure 7 shows the error that using slab tail (AEDC 6%) in the small scale model to the pitching moment. The GBU-32 pitching moment appears to be neutrally stable, while the large scale and CALSPAN results indicate the store is unstable at low angles of attack. This was attributed to the vortex shed by the GBU-32 strakes on the tail.

There are lot of interesting info bits in this paper. For example, look at Figure 8 and associated text. It underlines the large impact that neighboring store can have on aero parameters of given store - upto 2x yaw moment in transonic regime. Also note huge jump in yaw moment for a very short M number increment.

Zynda, this paper will interest you too.

Let me also link this video here of store separation testings, which I like. This must have been posted already on BRF somewhere.

[ramana]

JayS, It cant be flutter which is aero-elastic coupling. Its buffet or vibration from vortex shedding at Mach 0.9. May be locally it over Mach 1.0 in which case the forces are quite large.
We should look for papers on vibration of stores during aircraft separation.

[JayS]

JayS, It cant be flutter which is aero-elastic coupling. Its buffet or vibration from vortex shedding at Mach 0.9. May be locally it over Mach 1.0 in which case the forces are quite large.
We should look for papers on vibration of stores during aircraft separation.

It could be a flutter issue on missile fins, for all we know. Its possible that missile fins flutter while on pylons. A local flow distortion or flow acceleration could trigger flutter for the fins. At least I cannot say its not flutter with surety. Waiting for IR's inputs.

[ramana]

If that was the case we would have heard about it as Python is an iterative development and Israelis eould have made some noise.
Transonic flow is tricky. The vortex shedding is at high acoustic frequency and force is like a hammer blow. This could cause the fins to vibrate.

Rorark gives vibration freq for a triangular beam. What are fin dimensions?
Say 8 inches at the base and 5 inches at apex. 0.25 inch uniform thickness. Material Aluminium.

[Karan M]

Quick note: IAF classifies S-400 as LRSAM with procurement of 5 firing units. Likely battalions. Now, LRSAM classification automatically implies these are not classified as some sort of pure BMD proposal. The local program will clearly proceed apace.

[Gyan]

As per last CAG 2015 report Israel had neither "fully" integrated R73 or Derby even after 10 & 5 years respectively IIRC. Derby firing was without "full" integration.

[Karan M]

Gyan:
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=161752

Tejas, the Light Combat Aircraft today successfully demonstrated an Air-to-Air Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile firing capability by releasing Derby Air-to-Air BVR missile in RADAR guided mode. The missile launch was performed in Lock ON after Launch mode for a BVR target in the look down mode and the target was destroyed.

The objective of the test was to assess the Derby integration with aircraft systems on-board Tejas including the aircraft avionics, fire-control radar, launchers and Missile Weapon Delivery System and to verify its performance.

The test was conducted on a Manoeuvrable Aerial Target at the Interim Test Range (ITR), Chandipur. The sensors at ITR also tracked the target and missile.

A safe separation was followed by missile guidance towards RADAR acquired target. The flawless launch was demonstrated with all on-board systems performing satisfactorily and the missile scored a direct hit on the target with complete destruction of it.

The test firing achieved all its planned objectives. The Derby firing is a major step towards clearing BVR capabilities on LCA aircraft for FOC.

R-73:
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1629819
Bengaluru: The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme is heading towards the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) phase scheduled to be achieved by ...

[Karan M]

Both missiles have been integrated with avionics and fired.

[Zynda]

Rorark gives vibration freq for a triangular beam. What are fin dimensions?
Say 8 inches at the base and 5 inches at apex. 0.25 inch uniform thickness. Material Aluminium.

here

[Indranil]

Ramana/JayS,

I did talk about the problems with Python 5. But I never push for these kind of information. I was told the problem is not with the aircraft. It is with the missile. But Elta has been dragging its feet. Partially, the reason why other players even have a say for the AESA radars. It was there order to lose, and they have tried very hard to lose it.

I think ADE had articulated the problem with Sudarshan pretty well.

ADE is engaged with design & development of high precision laser guided bomb (LGB). It is an air dropped munition that by help of its seeker guides itself towards the target. The associated control law deflects the front canards to generate the desired trajectory. Figure 1 shows its overall
configuration. During its free flight, Air Weapon generates a roll which may be arising from sources such as manufacturing asymmetry, small protrusions, separation dynamics or unsteady atmospheric conditions. Though the roll is unintentional, it is generally not harmful, as small
amount of roll provides lateral stability to the flight. The control law is also such that it is able to incorporate some amount roll while guidance is given to munition. The problem arises when roll rate is more than 10 RPM which causes control law to be ineffective and it becomes difficult to
guide the munition.

In such instances, the canards are deflected so as to generate rolling moment for reducing the RPM. It is observed that canards are not very effective in producing desired rolling moment due to an “adverse roll” effect being generated from tail fin. It can be seen that the size of canards is
relatively large and when deflected, creates a large wake. The interaction of this wake with tail fins is reason behind “adverse roll” effect. This phenomena leads to non linear rolling moment (w.r.t. canard deflection). The non-linearity makes it very difficult to implement a roll control law in Air Weapon.

Therefore, ADE has decided to modify the munition to a Free Rolling Tail configuration, thereby, isolating the effect of tail roll on canard roll control effectiveness. However, whether the free rolling tail will affect the overall aerodynamics of Air Weapon, is dictated by the roll rate of tail, which is difficult to estimate. ADE desires to investigate the “adverse roll” phenomena in Air Weapon by CFD-dynamics studies with an objective to estimate the roll rate of tail fin under the influence of “induced” rolling moment.

[ramana]

Indranil, Thanks for this!!!

Ramana/JayS,

I did talk about the problems with Python 5. But I never push for these kind of information. I was told the problem is not with the aircraft. It is with the missile. But Elta has been dragging its feet. Partially, the reason why other players even have a say for the AESA radars. It was there order to lose, and they have tried very hard to lose it.

I think ADE had articulated the problem with Sudarshan pretty well.

ADE is engaged with design & development of high precision laser guided bomb (LGB). It is an air dropped munition that by help of its seeker guides itself towards the target. The associated control law deflects the front canards to generate the desired trajectory. Figure 1 shows its overall configuration.

During its free flight, Air Weapon generates a roll which may be arising from sources such as manufacturing asymmetry, small protrusions, separation dynamics or unsteady atmospheric conditions. Though the roll is unintentional, it is generally not harmful, as small amount of roll provides lateral stability to the flight. The control law is also such that it is able to incorporate some amount roll while guidance is given to munition. The problem arises when roll rate is more than 10 RPM which causes control law to be ineffective and it becomes difficult to guide the munition.

In such instances, the canards are deflected so as to generate rolling moment for reducing the RPM. It is observed that canards are not very effective in producing desired rolling moment due to an “adverse roll” effect being generated from tail fin. It can be seen that the size of canards is relatively large and when deflected, creates a large wake. The interaction of this wake with tail fins is reason behind “adverse roll” effect. This phenomena leads to non linear rolling moment (w.r.t. canard deflection). The non-linearity makes it very difficult to implement a roll control law in Air Weapon.

Therefore, ADE has decided to modify the munition to a Free Rolling Tail configuration, thereby, isolating the effect of tail roll on canard roll control effectiveness. However, whether the free rolling tail will affect the overall aerodynamics of Air Weapon, is dictated by the roll rate of tail, which is difficult to estimate. ADE desires to investigate the “adverse roll” phenomena in Air Weapon by CFD-dynamics studies with an objective to estimate the roll rate of tail fin under the influence of “induced” rolling moment.

So let me get this straight.

The LGB rolls due to some sources of roll moment from "sources such as manufacturing asymmetry, small protrusions, separation dynamics or unsteady atmospheric conditions'. However when it rolls greater than 10 rpm it exceeds the control law ability.
The canards could be used to roll in opposite direction to bring the roll back to <10 rpm.
However the large size of the canards cause wake which induces more roll in the tail fins so called adverse roll.
So they are thinking of allowing the tail fins to be free to rotate so it does not produce adverse roll.

My gut feeling is this wont work. Because the tail unit has to be mounted in a mechanism with bearings and that could jam up.

This problem they are facing is the reverse of the PGK fuze which has a free spinning canards to de-spin or control the adverse roll moment and guide the projectile.

What this means is the rotating tail unit needs a brake to control the amount of roll. And just allowing free rotation wont do.

Lets see how Paveway was designed.

It has fixed canards and movable tail fin surfaces. This causes the need for a cable raceway.

This is the design they came up from day one in 1967. The height of release provides the potential energy and the body lift gives the extra range. The front end laser seeker and control unit steers the rear fins towards the aim spot.
It is just like small thrust vector impulse to an energetic body to make it go where you want it to go.

Every design improvement is a variation of this. French, Russian, Israeli, you name it.

ADE design with movable canards and fixed tail doesn't need this cable raceway.

But runs into roll control issues which should be secondary but have come to dominate.

What IAF wanted was an LGB that hits the target.
Instead ADE went for a science project and still don't know if it will work.
They made a linear problem into a non-linear problem where second order effects dominate.
Their free tail unit wont work for they don't understand the mechanics.
Get a good mathematician and start looking at it from first principles.
Should get the answer in one week with pencil and paper.


Excuse my French.

You tell me from basic aerodynamics how can you control the flying body with the front end steering unless you do away with the the tail stabilizers?

Can't even do science in a science project.

They should get rid of the tail as its not doing anything.

Then it is like the Pershing front end with steering canards.

Or Agni TDS RV the first one.

Or make the tail fins smaller for then the adverse roll moment would be smaller.
The tail fins are for making the center of pressure aft of the CG for stability. Just like feathers on an arrow.
Free wheel in tail will bring in more reliability issues.


Its 7 years since the units were first tested, And IAF even ordered 50 of them to show interest.

[Karan M]

My understanding is the Sudarshan program is no longer there.
The seeker equipped HSLD bombs are the ones which have supplanted the Sudarshan program. The fifty unit order was also cancelled.
ADE has three programs underway, Rustom, Nirbhay and Light/Micro UAVs (with NAL). First two are considered critical. Third, some progress but as always foreign competitors have more leeway with proven sensor packages.

[srai]

Would the ~12km LGB still be needed once the 30km/100km PG-HSLD comes online? CEP is more or less equivalent.

[JayS]

Sjha tweets:

Air launched PGMs would include Rudra M II, Rudra M III, NGARM, MLPGM, Garud, Garuthama, SAAW abd ARDE PGK.


Never heard of Rudra M III before.

[ramana]

I want to know more about the ARDE PGK. It has the capability to change Indian Artillery effectiveness.

[JayS]

Some tidbits from ARDE site. Apologies if posted already here.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs1/ARDE ... rofile.jsp

Notable Contributions: A milestone contribution has been the Productionization and ToT of PINAKA, the world class MBRS designed and developed by ARDE, which is the Army's frontline weapon system. More than 6000 PINAKA Rockets have been supplied to the Army. Users have projected the requirement for 1.9 lakh Rockets and 22 MBRS regiments. Dr. Rajan is the principal designer of the PINAKA Rockets. He has also spearheaded the development of Pinaka Mk-II with an enhanced range of 60 km and having remarkable accuracy and consistency. Enabling technologies such as indigenous Turbo generator based ET Fuze, flow forming of rocket motors, nozzle based ignition and case bonded motors, wrap around fin stabilization for rockets, high L/D low calibre composite propellant grain of finocyl design methodology, etc. were established. The firepower of Pinaka has received a major boost due to the successful performance of the Area Denial Munition Warhead capable of neutralizing an area of more than 12,000 m2 with devastating effects during the User trial conducted in Sep 2016 at Pokhran, and with the User recommendation for its induction. ATM and STM warheads are getting ready for User trials.

Dr. Rajan has put to use his vast experience in Rocket technologies to guide the range enhancement of GRAD 122 mm Rocket available with the Army from 20 km to nearly 40 km achieved during flight trials during technology development project. He has facilitated ToT of ARDE products and has helped establish several work centres across the country for vital technologies such as flow forming, filament winding, TPS for rocket motor, propellant processing, etc.

Under Dr. Rajan's command, DRDO's blue chip project for development of Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) is going full steam, encouraged by the successful dynamic Proof trials using ARDE developed Fixed Firing Stand, ANGAD. Through his negotiation skills, meticulous supervision and timely action he has built up a good rapport with the numerous players involved in this vital programme, thus paving the way for realization of the first ever 155mm/52 calibre Artillery Gun for the Nation.

With the upgradation of Hypervelocity tunnel facility, ARDE's ambitious Electro Magnetic Gun project is on a fast track. Assembly of two Railguns of 12 mm and 30 mm Square Bore, test firing of 12 mm Railgun and layout for 1.6 MJ Capacitor bank has been completed, and the target is to fire a 1 kg projectile with a velocity of more than 2000 m/s with a capacitor bank of 10 MJ.

Dr. Rajan is ably steering ARDE in the field of Precision Guided Munitions. Mid-course guidance has been established for the Laser homing Cannon Launched Guided Missile. 120 mm Laser guided ATGM for empowering MBT Arjun MK-II is being developed. Development of Guided Pinaka having INS+GPS guidance with canard control, Accuracy of 60 – 80 m and Range enhancement up to 80 km is aimed at. Dynamic trials are planned during Dec 2016. Preliminary Adaptation of 450 kg HSLD Bomb with Griffin LG Kit & Dual Fuze on Jaguar and Su-30 has been completed. As a result of Dr. Rajan's persistent follow-up, Su-30 aircraft has been approved by Air Force as the platform for HSLD Bomb with Precision Guidance Kit , thus removing the hurdle for final implementation. Design & development of a variety of warheads for tactical missiles are also being progressed at ARDE.

The New Family of Munitions (NFM) programme, comprising six types of mines with sophisticated RF communication features, is progressing well. NIPUN has successfully completed User trials, VIBHAV & VISHAL are presently undergoing User trials, while remaining are fast approaching User trials. Several of the infantry projects are coming to fruition, namely, 40 mm Air Bursting Grenade, Joint Venture Protective Carbine, Multi Calibre Individual Weapon System and Corner Shot Weapon.

On the Naval front, Range extension of existing Anti-Submarine Rocket for RBU 6000 Launcher up to 8.5+ km has been successfully demonstrated.

[JayS]

Successful tests of SAAW.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/926386917561614336

Three tests, >70km range of the bombs.

[shiv]

Successful tests of SAAW.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/926386917561614336

Three tests, >70km range of the bombs.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=173197

Successful Flight Test of Guided Bombs


Indigenously developed light weight Glide Bomb, SAAW (Smart Anti Airfield Weapon) was successfully tested from Indian Air Force aircraft in the ranges at ITR, Chandipur, Odisha. The guided bomb released from the aircraft and guided through precision navigation system, reached the targets at greater than 70 km range, with high accuracies. A total of three tests with different release conditions and ranges were conducted and all were successful. The guided bomb is developed by Research Centre Imarat (RCI), DRDO along with other laboratories of DRDO and Indian Air Force.

Raksha Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman congratulated the DRDO scientists and Indian Air Force for the successful tests. Secretary Department of Defence R&D and Chairman DRDO, Dr. S Christopher congratulated the team and said SAAW will be inducted soon into the Armed Forces. Director General Missiles and Strategic System DG (MSS) Dr G Satheesh Reddy said it’s a major milestone in the indigenous capabilities to develop guided bombs.

[ramana]

Very good news. Three tests to validate different release conditions.
SAAW is US SDB equivalent.
And comes in two variants as was posted earlier in this thread.


JayS, That ARDE page is good be reminded off even if it was posted earlier.

Lots of information.

When the HSLD bombs were designed by ARDE accompanying fuzes (nose and tail) were also developed.
OFB had the responsibility to make them.
There was an accident during a training flight and these were withdrawn.

Looks like ARDE has got the handle on such fuzes.

[srai]

Re-Posting:

• 125kg -> SAAW
• 500kg -> PGHSLD

1000/year

http://www.makeinindiadefence.com/Updat ... 0.2.17.pdf

...
SHQ (Air Force)
Project No.3
1. Name of Potential Project
Long Range Glide Bombs

2.Brief about the project
MoD, Gol intends to procure Long Range Glide Bombs (LRGBs) to be delivered from different aircraft platforms. The LRGBs are proposed to be developed and manufactured under the ̳Make‘ category of the DPP. As a preliminary step, two classes of LRGBs_viz 125 Kg and 500 Kg, compatible with Su-30 MKI aircraft are intended to be indigenously developed and produced.

3. Broad specifications / PSQRs which can be shared with the Industry
(a) Mai Range should be around 100 km when released from 42000 ft.
(b) Types of warhead - Blast fragmentation and Penetration.
(c) High accuracy.
(d) High shelf life
(e) Operation, Transportation and storage in Indian conditions.

4. Tentative quantity to be procured after successful prototype development
Appr a thousand per year.

5. Tentative timeline for induction
As soon as trials are successfully completed.
...

Looks like these two will be the standard PGM in the IAF's arsenal in the near future; 1000/year planned.

[ramana]

So they want the glide kit or the whole product? And whose technology?
LRGB consists of guidance kit and the bomb.
Guidance kit consists of sensors and control system and control mechanisms
bomb consists of body, explosive filling and tail unit and fuzes.

All this is not just available in private sector without transfer from already making units.

[Kartik]

Great news about SAAW's successful tests! It will very likely be integrated with the Tejas as well, providing it with a lightweight standoff weapon that could be carried on a dual or quad rack. Now that would be some serious stand-off strike capability.

[JayS]

@kurup89 (same poster who posts those navarea plots here I suppose) tweeted about NAVAREA warning for 7-9 Nov. Possible Nirbhay test.

[Cybaru]

As more weapons come online, IAF will have to buy its fighters at home (product of ADA/HAL) or it will become really difficult to qualify these new weapons and recertify them every-time we make new improvements to them. Plus qualifying them with a foreign vendor always lets the secrets out the bag. For the sake of operational edge, it will need to do everything at home and then guard these details like hell. IAFs bulk fighting force will need to come from home. They better get inline with such an idea especially if they want to go hammer and tongs and don't want their supply chain held hostage to foreign powers.

So IMO buying at home gives IAF a huge edge
- Keeps it quite contemporary with weapons and advances and allows for faster upgrade cycles
- Keeps supply chain working no matter how many days the war is for.
- Reduces artificial constraints like it is going to be one week war etc to minimum and frees them to create more advantageous plan for them. They fight on their terms. It doesn't have to be a quickie! IAF can soften before IA needs to go in. Can reduce casualty quite a bit.
- Keeps the enemy guessing on abilities of tools and how they can be brought to bear on them.
- It allows them to get creative with new configs and new man machine interface to create better personalization.


Congrats IAF & DRDO for adding a few new bows in the quiver

[prasannasimha]

[prasannasimha]

[ArjunPandit]

As more weapons come online, IAF will have to buy its fighters at home (product of ADA/HAL) or it will become really difficult to qualify these new weapons and recertify them every-time we make new improvements to them. Plus qualifying them with a foreign vendor always lets the secrets out the bag. For the sake of operational edge, it will need to do everything at home and then guard these details like hell. IAFs bulk fighting force will need to come from home. They better get inline with such an idea especially if they want to go hammer and tongs and don't want their supply chain held hostage to foreign powers.

So IMO buying at home gives IAF a huge edge
- Keeps it quite contemporary with weapons and advances and allows for faster upgrade cycles
- Keeps supply chain working no matter how many days the war is for.
- Reduces artificial constraints like it is going to be one week war etc to minimum and frees them to create more advantageous plan for them. They fight on their terms. It doesn't have to be a quickie! IAF can soften before IA needs to go in. Can reduce casualty quite a bit.
- Keeps the enemy guessing on abilities of tools and how they can be brought to bear on them.
- It allows them to get creative with new configs and new man machine interface to create better personalization.


Congrats IAF & DRDO for adding a few new bows in the quiver

Very succinctly summarized!
Playing devil's advocate, how does israel work it out? It heavily relies on US for platforms like F16, F15, & F35, but it does make radars and weapons

[Cybaru]

Israel has a much closer relationship with US defense industry. We don't. We will have to pay to qualify/re-qualify everything... They get subsidy and use funny money for these things.