Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

nam · Post by **nam** » 07 Nov 2017 22:47

Karthik S wrote:
shiv wrote: Yes. Amreeka did that and failed. Useless exercise
Shiv ji, you even said 450kg warhead CM will not be of much use as well when talking about targeting strategic points in China. What scenarios you believe CMs will be useful, atleast in our context.

In-depth Chini targets in Tibet for example. Railways and bridges connecting Tibet from hanland, bringing in noodles, located 1000KM from LAC.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Nov 2017 22:51

more applicable to bush wars imo than our use cases. and really if anyone detects loitering CMs they will lie low for 1 hr until its fuel runs out and it falls to ground

a reaper drone with 8 hellfires can also loiter more effectively.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Nov 2017 23:25

Sorry for being late to the party!!!!

First of all congrats to ADE and DRDO for the Nirbhay successful test.
Shows they can recover from a failure very quickly once the higher ups give the pressure.

Flight Test Investigation, Root Cause, switching the engine from Turbo-fan to Turbo jet(involves, structure changes and software changes quite big deal) and building the flight test configuration vehicles and conducting the test before 2017 end is awesome. First class performance.

I will now try to answer some of the questions from my vantage.

First one:

JayS wrote:From here:
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.se/2014 ... tegic.html
Saturday, October 18, 2014
2nd Test-Flight Of Nirbhay Strategic Cruise Missile A Total Success

The nuclear-capable LACM yesterday had a flight-time lasting 80 minutes and cruised over a distance of 1,157km at a speed of Mach 0.7. Eight more test-flights now remain to be conducted prior to its entry-into-service with India’s Strategic Forces Command in ground-launched, submarine-launched and air-launched versions.
If this is correct info, given that two fully successful tests have happened so far, we should see 7-8 more tests before Entry into Service.

Unfortunately Prasun has misreported as his account does not reconcile with the official account.
Besides a turbo-jet engine is very thirsty and difficult to achieve the range or flight time he reports.

The good news in above report is more tests are planned.
Next:

prasannasimha wrote:Wonder why the sudden change in engine. Was that a probable cause of failure like the stones in the original cryogenic GSLV engine ? which was an omerta to prevent people joining "the club".

Dr. PN, The turbo fans were imported assuming the flight tests would be successful. And they ran out of them with the last one early this year. None of the flight tests were attributed to turbo-fan underperformance. So rest assured on this account. When Manohar Parrikar decide to give them 18 moth time for successful test, and not having any more spare turbofans the only choice was to proof the vehicle with the indigenous turbo-jet. It begs the question why the initial flights were not done using the Turbo-jet and then switch to the Saturn made turbo-fan. However in their defense, the plan was to switch to the Manik once the vehicle was proofed successfully. In hind sight the plan should have been first 4 with turbo-jet, next 4 with turbo-fan and then 4 more with Manik.

Case in reference:

negi wrote:PTAE-7 is iffy imo as it has a very high SFC (1.15 kg./kg.f/hr) as against about <0.7 kg/(kgf∙h) for NPO-Saturn's 36MT so despite thrust figures being close range and loiter time will be have to be compromised ; not that we should let the perfect come in the way of good but then if PTAE-7 indeed works for Nirbhay then I would ask why was 36MT even in the mix .

Plan was to switch the engine to Manik. Then software changes would be minimal as both are turbo-fans. PTAE-7 had to be used to meet the Parrikar deadline.

Next:

shiv wrote:
Karthik S wrote:
Shiv ji, you even said 450kg warhead CM will not be of much use as well when talking about targeting strategic points in China. What scenarios you believe CMs will be useful, atleast in our context.
Pinpoint targets. Radar sites. Control & Comm centers, power stations, bridges, ships, ammo dumps

You are forgetting the most important target of all: Nasr powered nukes. All those way points are to hunt the nooks and crannies they Pakis will hide their Nasr and nasl them. The Nirbhay with its 1500 km rang is not a China centric missile. Then what is the point of that rang and all those way points and that super duper guidance system with INS and MINGS? I think the range gives enough loiter capability to go Nasr hunting.

I want singha to write a scenario using the Nirbhay waypoint navigation feature and its ~28 types of warheads as it goes hunting for paki nukes.

Gagan wrote:Why can’t the mijjile do a Brahmos istyle bharata-natyam by phyrring three rockets from the tip to suddenly bring it to a horizontal position?

On a serious note,
Congratulations to DRDO and everyone involved!

That's called front end steering or ahead steering. They probably will have it for the sub-launched version that will have a ballistic cap to punch through the launch closure.

Pratyush wrote:
Why should a cruise missile loiter for whatever amount of time. Isn't the objective hitting a target.

To hunt and kill targets which are mobile.

Most likely I except that Services know general location of these mobile targets and program the likely locations. So Nirbhay goes and looks and if it finds it kills them or moves on. You get the picture.

Shiv, Nuke capable means it has black boxes that pass on the arming signals to the payload. Not all weapons have such gadgets. So from the get go Nirbhay has a nuke role. No ambiguity.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Nov 2017 23:27

BTW yesterday I hosted a single malt tasting party at my humble abode and one of the toasts was to a successful flight.

Looks like the Gods accepted our good wishes.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Nov 2017 00:07

Ramana, that news is from 2014 after 2nd test. He mentioned 8 more tests. Since we havent had much sucess after that, 7-8 more tests to go if the plan is intact and that piece from 2014 is correct.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 00:17

I stand corrected...
Usually the tests have objectives; proof the launch concept, structure, guidance, engine, navigation etc.
Some of these are combined in the tests.
So what was the number 8 supposed to proof?

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 08 Nov 2017 00:30

What are the details on the desi turbo jet? Dimensions, thrust, developing agency, other uses. Excuse, if already shared elsewhere.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 08 Nov 2017 00:37

And of course congratulations. All of us had been waiting for this. Does this mean another 3-4 years before operationalization?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0k6W3ut-CI

Video from two years back.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Nov 2017 01:06

Excellent news! Hearty congratulations to ADE and to DRDO for meeting the deadline and delivering! They must have been under immense pressure, with the fate of the program depending on the success of this test. Now that some of the pressure would be relieved, they can work on perfecting the LACM and having an absolute world-beater delivered to the Armed Forces. India needs hundreds of Nirbhay LACMs and if the PTAE-7 turbojet worked perfectly but at a lower range, then a Nirbhay-TJ variant should be pushed into production first and then a Nirbhay-TF variant with the Manik can be tested and then replace the TJ variant in production. This TJ vs TF debate should not come in the way of operationalising the Nirbhay. If it does the job, it must be inducted. It can be perfected over time, but that shouldn't come in the way of putting it into production and handing it over to the Armed Forces. I just hope that the Armed Forces don't raise the issue of a turbojet engine as a reason for putting off inducting it.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Nov 2017 01:29

kartik,

Who is selling the armed forces cruize missiles? I don't think they will make much fuss!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 02:03

Rishi_Tri wrote:What are the details on the desi turbo jet? Dimensions, thrust, developing agency, other uses. Excuse, if already shared elsewhere.

The specs are scattered in many links.

Its called PTAE-7 and is made by HAL Engine Division since 2000.
Its thrust is 3.74KN or ~800 lbf.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 02:07

Kartik wrote:Excellent news! Hearty congratulations to ADE and to DRDO for meeting the deadline and delivering! They must have been under immense pressure, with the fate of the program depending on the success of this test. Now that some of the pressure would be relieved, they can work on perfecting the LACM and having an absolute world-beater delivered to the Armed Forces. India needs hundreds of Nirbhay LACMs and if the PTAE-7 turbojet worked perfectly but at a lower range, then a Nirbhay-TJ variant should be pushed into production first and then a Nirbhay-TF variant with the Manik can be tested and then replace the TJ variant in production. This TJ vs TF debate should not come in the way of operationalising the Nirbhay. If it does the job, it must be inducted. It can be perfected over time, but that shouldn't come in the way of putting it into production and handing it over to the Armed Forces. I just hope that the Armed Forces don't raise the issue of a turbojet engine as a reason for putting off inducting it.

My thoughts too.

The range of 647 Km is perfectly good for Nirbhay-TJ version.

Get this going for IA & IAF use immediately.

IAF model would have even longer range as the plane acts as the booster.

IN might need the longer 1500 km range version.

The

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Nov 2017 03:48

Karthik S wrote:
Indranil wrote:People worried about the range afforded by the turbojet. Please don't worry. There are multiple 300-400 DaN turbofans in design and validation. There is no point in stalling the project till they are ready.

The cruise missile doesn't have to do the dances of a fighter plane. Whenever, one of the turbofans become available, it will be fitted and tested. This is not a big deal.

The turbojets are just a stopgap to continue testing. Increasing range by decreasing LRU weights, increasing fuel fraction, using better SFC engines will be a continuous saga. They have to get the functional systems correct and reliable first.
Indranil, can engines be replaced enmasse from TJ powered missiles to TF powered?

It depends on how closely matched the engines are in weight, space and airflow. Another aspect is how optimized you want your solution to be.

Right now, this is just a stop gap solution. They are not worried about propulsive efficiency right now. So they could change from a turbofan to turbojet in less than a year.

Don't worry. If the other LRUs are proven out, going back to a turbofan will be a few months of work.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Nov 2017 04:07

rakall wrote:https://twitter.com/band318/status/927868724249616384
Atleast 1 visual difference between today"s test and specimen from 1st test - the transition between booster & aft-body of missile sealed.

ACtually, I think the angle is playing tricks with you. If you look at pictures from all previous launches, they look the same as this one. The change I think is at the other end. The nose is much more blunt, I think.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 08 Nov 2017 04:23

Question to experts here!! Is it possible to have MIRV on cruise missiles?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 04:52

Technically no. As cruise missiles don't go above the atmosphere. However can have hypersonic CM that go above and re-enter. What you are asking us can it have multiple payloads? Currently it can carry 200kg. So multiple payloads will have less useful payload.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Nov 2017 06:20

Thanks to Delhi Defence Review:

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 06:37

I liked the camera angle from the seashore that shows booster separation about 11 secs.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 08 Nov 2017 06:51

ramana wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:What are the details on the desi turbo jet? Dimensions, thrust, developing agency, other uses. Excuse, if already shared elsewhere.

The specs are scattered in many links.

Its called PTAE-7 and is made by HAL Engine Division since 2000.
Its thrust is 3.74KN or ~800 lbf.

Thanks.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 08 Nov 2017 07:00

PratikDas wrote:Thanks to Delhi Defence Review:

As our friendly commentator from 26th Jan parade would say - Vihangam Drishya.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Nov 2017 07:16

there is a lakhsya in HAL museum, and I think a PTAE7 engine also in the mail hall. its quite small. makes me wonder if we had the engine since 2000 why it took until around 2014 to unveil our CM ? and there was no imported item on the table also. we woke up very late despite CMs being used in ODS 1991

our philsophy while Cheen was quietly building a huge domestic r&d system in 90s and 00s was "if pakistan does not have it, lets not bother, we are safe"

we forgot that TSPians dont have much of a brain either, so we relinquished much of our brains to match

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Nov 2017 07:21

Take a look at when Nirbhay program was launched.

The PTAE7 history is in a drone called Chukkar.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2017 07:52

ramana wrote:Currently it can carry 200kg.

Nirbhay missile diameter = 52 cm
Warhead weight=200 kag

If it is nuclear that would be classified as a light warhead. It is not easy (as per my reading) to achieve a 200 kg, <50 cm warhead. Only an efficient thermonuclear warhead can get there IMO. Good job. If true.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2017 07:55

ashish raval wrote:Question to experts here!! Is it possible to have MIRV on cruise missiles?

MIRV
M-Multiple
I= Independent
R=Re-entry
V=vehicle

"re-entry" from where? From space.

A cruise missile flies like a plane and does not go into space, so the question of "re entry" does not occur.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2017 07:58

Singha wrote: our philsophy while Cheen was quietly building a huge domestic r&d system in 90s and 00s was "if pakistan does not have it, lets not bother, we are safe"

we forgot that TSPians dont have much of a brain either, so we relinquished much of our brains to match

If we are going down this line of thinking, let me point out that we still have not developed any brains including many of us on BRF, who are a reflection of the baboos and afsars. Recall that the "solutions" I hear for various ills include the import of F-35s. That should help us a great deal.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2017 08:11

I think too much is being read into the words "loiter" and "target of opportunity.

A cruise missile flying at Mach 0.7 is not designed to loiter for targets of opportunity. The "loitering" is more likely to be a meandering course that takes it away from the actual target and confuses defences while it makes a last minute turn towards the actual target.

"Targets of opportunity" need to be identified first (when the opportunity arises). For that there has to be some observation platform in the area. That observation platform (AEW/Drone/Satellite) has to communicate with the cruise mijjile and give it coordinates for the target of opportunity. Hitting a moving target is even more difficult because the cruise missile will need coordinate updates to the last second. That is because a truck moving at just 30 kmph will have moved 80 meters away in 10 seconds and will probably survive a 200 kg conventional blast 80 meters behind.

The latest issue of Vayu Aerospace says that the US has taken delivery of 4000 Tomahawk missiles and 100,000 dumb bomb guidance kits.

The US can afford to drop bombs like goatshit. We will need to be more circumspect.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Nov 2017 10:36

PratikDas wrote:Thanks to Delhi Defence Review:

Cool!

1. Loved to hear women's voices in the telemetry and tracking.. Stuff like hearing a woman's voice announce "booster jettisoned" and "wing deployed" are good signs of how far we have come as a society and people. More power to such women and my deepest respects .

2. Don't believe this B.S about 670km or whatever. This is a full 1500 km+ ranged missile. Just because it was only "tested" for 670 whatever, doesn't make it so. The reason why it is 670 km is because of the usual "dhoti shivering" and self effacing routine. We really dont advertise the full capability of our stuff, especially strategic stuff. You post the range as 1500 km+, you making it a extra "regional", "intermediate range" weapon . This turbojet/turbofan nonsense is meant exactly to sow this kind of confusion. It is B.S . Given the thrust levels, it wont make an order of magnitude difference (like 2X the range) that they seem to pretend .

3. The ground launched version will be proven first, then the ship and sub launched versions will follow.
4. This will give a long range precision strike capability -- This is a tactical weapon only, so stuff like command and control, major installations, bases, ships, infra etc of TSP and Cheen can and will be taken out in a first wave strike as part of an opening salvo.
5. We should inventory around 2000 such copies and deploy them in the North East & Andaman ,and on ships ,subs , in addition to northern , western and central India.

JMT etc..etc..

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 08 Nov 2017 11:06

I am a little familiar with PTAE-7 engine. It is a product of HAL engine division. IIRC, it was not designed for a long burn time such as experienced in CM. Probably a lot of work was done to make it CM compatible.

Was the 1500 Km range estimated (per Wiki) based on turbofan engine? Anyways, baby steps are OK. Get the other systems validated to begin with. Improvement including additional range can come downstream as other systems including Manik engine comes online.

Congrats to DRDO/ADE/India

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Nov 2017 11:42

Zynda wrote:I am a little familiar with PTAE-7 engine. It is a product of HAL engine division. IIRC, it was not designed for a long burn time such as experienced in CM. Probably a lot of work was done to make it CM compatible.

Was the 1500 Km range estimated (per Wiki) based on turbofan engine? Anyways, baby steps are OK. Get the other systems validated to begin with. Improvement including additional range can come downstream as other systems including Manik engine comes online.

Congrats to DRDO/ADE/India

That's what I have been thinking that perhaps PTAE was not a suitable engine initially when Nirbhay was conceived. That why they never really considered it. True to our SDRE nature of aiming for moon in our first attempt, DRDO must have never looked at possibly using it for initial phase while a proper TF is being made.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2017 11:50

Ramana,what malts did you sample? I used to conduct such tastings at my club 20 yrs ago when few knew about SMs.If we meet in the UK I'll take you for a tasting!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Nov 2017 11:55

I think 670KM is useful with respect to Both Pakis and China , we need to get this numbers, start production and then start inducting the TF in numbers.

I hope there is an air launched version also with the Boosterjet removed, should be much lighter than Bramhos.

No more tough 1971 raids on Sakesar, a few Nirbhay's fired through the Kashmir mountains coming from the back of the Salt range and taking out the radar and the PAF will be blind to further low flying intruders taking out thier other radars and airfields before IAF aircraft move in

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 08 Nov 2017 12:00

600 km is in BrahMos territory, not much use. Need 1500 wala.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Nov 2017 12:06

Bootomline is we DON't know if 670km was due to limitation of TJ or it was simply the way test was conducted. So no point in discussing it anymore. Even if it was, TJ is just a stopgap measure.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 08 Nov 2017 12:40

shiv..its also possible that in an advanced avtaar of the nirbhay missile. it carries a camera to determine targets and communicates with a command centre.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Nov 2017 12:47

Karthik S wrote:600 km is in BrahMos territory, not much use. Need 1500 wala.

Not really sir. The cost will be a factor and we may not be willing to use Brahmos on all the targets and a cheaper alternative which do the same job is always required. Also, not all targets required a Mach 3 CM.

pravula · Post by **pravula** » 08 Nov 2017 12:55

JayS wrote:
negi wrote:Indranil on 'project stalling point' if this flight was indeed powered by the PTAE-7 then why were we even using Saturn engine all this long ? We could have finalized upon this from very beginning until the MANIK came online.
You think a missile with 600km range had got sanctioned if indeed the range limjt is due to SFC.? Since when we were that smart in program management anyway..? Without promise of going to moon even a bicycle project wouldnt get sanctioned in India. It has to be "world-class" on paper.

and Light. Don't forget Light

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Nov 2017 13:01

manjgu wrote:shiv..its also possible that in an advanced avtaar of the nirbhay missile. it carries a camera to determine targets and communicates with a command centre.

That's a MALE or HALE you are talking about not CM. We need weaponised UAVs for that. CM is good for travelling long range below the deck without getting detected by Radars and hit pre-designated targets, mostly stationary but perhaps also ones with limited mobility. CMs will be used to take down key installations in the initial phase of war at long ranges behind enemy lines, evading through heavily defended area. Active target ID with comm links to CC is quite a stretch I would say in such scenario. For shorter ranges/uncontested airspace UAVs are best suited and more cost effective.

CMs do carry some kind of camera and match the image with pre-fed target image to home on for terminal guidance.

srin · Post by **srin** » 08 Nov 2017 13:39

Karthik S wrote:600 km is in BrahMos territory, not much use. Need 1500 wala.

I doubt that Brahmos has anywhere close to 600km range in lo-lo flight profile.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Nov 2017 13:40

srin wrote:
Karthik S wrote:600 km is in BrahMos territory, not much use. Need 1500 wala.
I doubt that Brahmos has anywhere close to 600km range in lo-lo flight profile.

lo-lo-lo range for 300km Brahmos is 120km or so. For extended range Brahmos, not sure.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Nov 2017 13:59

Karthik S wrote:600 km is in BrahMos territory, not much use. Need 1500 wala.

Brahmos due to cost will always be used only in limited numbers, this should be far cheaper and should have a the numbers.