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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 18 Sep 2017 20:00

Karthik S wrote:My theory, Shiv ji, as a doc you would be knowing that it takes 3 seconds for human skin to burn from fire. Therefore, there has to be sufficient exposure to heat or fire for objects to get damaged or so. When we talk about missiles launch from planes, it's only for fraction of a second that other parts of the plane are exposed to the fire or hot exhaust from the motor, preventing any damage.


:) Nice theory but no. Skin can burn in 0.1 second depending on the rate of energy transfer from source to skin. Imagine touching a white hot rod of metal. But never mind that - this is not just about heat - it is about deposition of chemical propellant products on the clean dome of the IR seeker - like fogging up glasses.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60489
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 20:53

I have seen the wing undersides of Su25 in syria are blackened from the exhaust residue of rockets probably.

this is from a shopworn veteran flying near deir azzor last week
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5883
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 18 Sep 2017 22:53

The tips of A2A missiles are designed to endure very high temperatures and pressure. Pilots are known to heat there sandwiches by putting them against the canopy. Imagine the tip of a missile flying at 4000 kmph. And these temperatures are sustained over the duration of the missiles flight. I don't think heat from the nearby missile is that big of problem when pylons, wing surfaces etc of airplanes can handle it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5883
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 18 Sep 2017 22:55

Singha sir,

I am a big fan of the A-10s and the Su-25s. I wish HAL designed an equivalent. Although Abhibhushan sir has asked for a mudmover, IAF has never officially shown interest in one. Has it?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2017 00:47

Indranil, Both A-10 and Su-24 were planes designed on WWII Il2 and He-129 experience. And were to defeat the huge tank armadas of the NATO and Warsaw pact.
In fact Pierre Sprey the systems analyst behind the USAF modernization had drawn up requirements for plane based on a Gnat.

Here is link on its origins:

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 07467.html

I have a picture Post card with Hans Ulrich Rudel's autograph!!

I got it in 1976.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby VinodTK » 19 Sep 2017 00:59

Indranil wrote:Singha sir,

I am a big fan of the A-10s and the Su-25s. I wish HAL designed an equivalent. Although Abhibhushan sir has asked for a mudmover, IAF has never officially shown interest in one. Has it?

An aircraft like the A10 would be such a potent weapon against the PLA rocket forces (will keep them far away), armored and troop columns (would be easy targets in barren Tibet), and troops if ever PLA decides to use human wave tactices in the mountains

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 19 Sep 2017 01:13

To deploy its gun the A-10 has to first survive MANPADS, VSHORADs and SHORADs that are part of their maneuver forces. These aren't the Taliban we are speaking of here where the threat is mostly from small arms fire and RPGs. Of course you could always assume this risk but then you have to properly buy the force to account for higher losses. If it gets out of the gun range to buy back some of the survivability then it looses some of its advantages associated with that aspect of its design. At the end of the day, it all depends upon how you size up the threat.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5883
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 19 Sep 2017 01:59

There is a huge gap in the spectrum between an aircraft capable of A2A duels and an aircraft that is susceptible to MANPADS, SHORADS etc. Also there are huge gaps in the coverage on both sides in terms of coverage to exploit by a semi-agile mud-mover. An A-10 or Su-25 as is may not be our solution, but we can think of a few blunt nosed fighters.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 19 Sep 2017 02:34

Absolutely, but the CONEMP of a modern aircraft for the purpose (what A-10 and Su-25 were designed to do) would have to be different and account for this threat across the mission set.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Sep 2017 02:34, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2824
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Sep 2017 02:34

I think a fleet of backfire types would do well here. Can be used as DPSA and in mudmover (ok, outright bomber) role thanks to its ability to: 1) Carry v. long ranged CMs, 2) Move fast and loiter if needed, 3) Carry dumb bombs in huge quantities.

Not to mention its maritime abilities.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5883
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 19 Sep 2017 03:10

Backfires are expensive. I am speaking of 30-40 million dollar planes which can take 3-5 Tons of bombs/rockets at a TWR of 0.35 to 0.5.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3346
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Sep 2017 03:31

The whole idea of A-10s and SU-25s was to unleash lethality against ground formations. The A-10 was the centerpiece of NATO's strategy to kill Soviet tanks as they poured across the Fulda Gap. This at the time was also called "Dragons Teeth": depleted Uranium rounds against armor.

Does the concept of 'tank killer' still make sense in an era of CBU-105s? If the stupid pakis do an 'armored thrust ' across Akhnur, does one go into a symmetrical response of Khem Karan or simply send in Jaguars flying at high altitude to unleash the CBUs?

Going forward, it is all about lethality combined with survivability. Henceforth, it will be about getting LO unmanned vehicles to deliver precision munitions from altitude.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2017 03:46

Cosmo_R, I would like the Jaguars re-engined. That would give them more power and extend life.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2017 07:56

Off topic but I think too much romance is attached to the idea of a heavily armoured "survivable" aircraft.

No aircraft are never going to become like that. Yes they may have some stuff that basically seals tanks and protects pilots from shrapnel and stray bullets but ultimately there are only 3 options for the flyer

1. Don't fly at all because it is too risky
2. Stay at long ranges and miss out on a significant percentage of targets
3. Get into battle at personal risk and fight it out like the soldier on the ground using one's machine's strengths against the enemy's weakness

Ultimately war with a foe of equal or near equal capability will never exclude option 3.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1497
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Sid » 19 Sep 2017 09:52

Form follows function, and aircraft like A-10/Su-25 are purpose built for CAS.

Jaguar is more like Su-24/F-111, tactical strike aircraft.

But future for CAS is UCAS, everything else will fade away quickly.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 19 Sep 2017 15:14

Self protection is only going to work if you are setting yourself up to deploy it properly. Low and slow would still be problematic against a maneuver force equipped with all sorts of denial systems from MANPADS to mobile short to medium range SAM systems. Things are only getting more complicated with the proliferation of active seekers (IIR and RF) and SRMs. The threat environment would look a lot different in the future as it already does with well equipped armies around the world.

Form follows function, and aircraft like A-10/Su-25 are purpose built for CAS.


In permissive environment perhaps, but the titanium bath tub is not going to get you the same survivability from a SAM rich environment like it could against small arms fires. It is great against the Taliban, ISIS, or those that don't have the ability to concentrate surface to air fires to bring down those aircraft. Others, having seen what the ability to deny these assets gets them have wisely invested in it. SAM systems are getting compact, missiles getting more efficient in terms of range and seekers getting more effective and cheaper. Close Air Support would look a lot different in that environment and depending upon how and against who you had made contact may have to be done through the clouds, and perhaps even from ground based systems such as long range fires support or Artillery etc. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are aberrations ..Go back and you have instances where air-forces lost a ton of aircraft to surface based systems. Keep in mind that in Vietnam, the USAF/N/A lost thousands of aircraft.

But future for CAS is UCAS, everything else will fade away quickly.


The current goal of effective CAS is to put an appropriate munition on an appropriate target. This will be done by dedicated assets as allowed but may have to be done by anything that can get to the target the fastest, or actually survive its way there. There is no one solution against a myriad of potential threats. If you want long loiter to support troops in contact, you need something like the A-10, AC-130 or something like what the Textron Scorpios is doing. If you want to get to the troops the fastest, you need a fast jet that can get there earlier than an A-10 or AC-130. If you need a lot of munitions you need a heavier aircraft that can both hang there for a while and can keep dropping munitions as demanded. UCAVs will absolutely play a role here, obviously not going low and slow but deploying munitions from range. But even they are not going to be able to do it all themselves, it will be a team effort depending upon what sort of demands are placed and what the enemy allows since it always gets a vote. Ultimately, the fastest, and the most survivable form of Close of Air support at times could be a ground based fires such as PF with 200-500 km range and enough accuracy and small enough warhead to do it effectively, and something like a ground launched SDB that SAAB and Boeing have developed. Same with MLRS systems. There will be instances where you simply can't get an air asset over head fast enough, get it to survive for prolonged periods of time, or get appropriate mission focused munitions. Its a team sport.


sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby sanjaykumar » 20 Sep 2017 08:00

Thanks for the link to German input into the Indian rocket program. Were the Germans trying to keep India independent of the soviet orbit?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Pratyush » 22 Sep 2017 11:27

Question regarding the SAAW, what is it about this munition that prevents it from being used against oil farms and railways marshaling yards or port infrastructure ( such as crains) .

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1455
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby manjgu » 22 Sep 2017 12:04

if u see runway denial munition like Durandal ..its about penetrating something hard..going a bit deep and then exploding. thats requirement of blowing up a hardented structure...more like cratering something. not the best weapon against an oil farm/railway yard/port...for that u reqqquire something which bursts on impact ...huge fire..explosion to hit things in a big radius...

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1455
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby manjgu » 22 Sep 2017 12:13

idea behind SAAW like weapon is to crater something .... in fact i believe if SAAW like weapon falls on a railway yard...it could go so deep as to have a minimal impact !

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Sep 2017 20:59

siddhu wrote:https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP92M00732R000400020015-6.pdf



This the old MTCR Ayatollah Gary Millholin. His report was summarized in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at that time.
Mostly baloney.


German DLR was learning space launch vehicle technology too.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20418
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Prem » 25 Sep 2017 04:13

BRAHM0S-II and the unstoppable ZIRC0N will have the same Scramjet Engine


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 658
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 25 Sep 2017 09:40

Seems like the Nirbhay test will happen again in December only..is it just me or others too feel that our missile testing seems to be on low tempo

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Gyan » 25 Sep 2017 10:34

TOTAL BUDGET NIRBHAY Rs 50 Crores
Cost of one Harpoon or Brahmos to India Rs. 40 stores.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 25 Sep 2017 11:59

ArjunPandit wrote:Seems like the Nirbhay test will happen again in December only..is it just me or others too feel that our missile testing seems to be on low tempo


Nirbhay testing is low tempo. I wouldnt say the same about other missiles.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 25 Sep 2017 12:02

Gyan wrote:TOTAL BUDGET NIRBHAY Rs 50 Crores
Cost of one Harpoon or Brahmos to India Rs. 40 stores.


Isnt Brahmos like close to 3 million usd(approx INR 20 cr). Which is still a lot.

Foreign weapon systems will always cost you a lot.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2017 13:10

BMos is a v.expensive though a hugely destructive missile.BMos-2/BMos-Hyper whatever,will cost even more. The planned smaller BMos-L should be more affordable and enter mass production when ready. However,as we've seen in the Syrian conflict,the Klub/Kalibir class of missiles ,with a 2000km+ range is what we need in large number.One supposes that Nirbhay (our desi Tomahawk) was supposed to fill the role.However,the quality of the missile has been in Q right from the start. The last test apparently failed becos sub-std. recycled material was used (DRDO chief).
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/idrw ... rdo_chief/

If you look how the BMos prog. has been run ,in parallel with the Nirbhay prog. ,one has to ask the Q why has one succeeded spectacularly,while the other has failed so miserably? First major point.BMos is a JV with Russia,but a corp.Each side doing part of the work.An incomplete Ru universal missile prog. was taken out of cold storage and deftly turned into a world-beater. Point 2. Nirbhay tx. to the MTCR couldn't then become a JV as until we (recently) joined the MTCR,we couldn't develop with a firang partner a missile with range beyond 300km.We can certainly do that now. However,failures of N'bay due to "software" glitches,"sub-std. materials "cannot be excused since in the BMos prog. too,software and materials made from desi raw mat. are in our part of the programme. It shows that the BMos team is far superior to the Nbay team,management and prod. wise. One delivers and the other can't.

But Nbay can't be sidelined in favour of BMos.While BMos ranges are to be extended upto even 900km say some,the missile is very expensive and can't be used for every target.The need for our "desi Tomahawak" with a range of upto 2000km+ remains. The prog. has to succeed. One suggests that experts from the BMos team are roped into vetting the NB prog. and make their recommendations.Dr. PIllai may have retd.,but one is sure that his services (and others) can certainly be roped in,just as was Dr.APJAK's also even when he was Pres.

PS:The success of the Kalibir missile has prompted Russia to re-equip many of its subs and surface vessels with this LRCM that has pin-point accuracy.These platforms earlier had v.large supersonic SSMs ,some with N-warheads. In the last two decades,the nature of intl. warfare has changed with less nation vs nation conflicts,but more terrorist/rebel armies acting as proxies for other interested parties/nations,destabilising exg. regimes.These entities on both sides have been supported by the mil superpowers,the US against Libya and the Russians for Syria. In both these conflicts,the use of massed strikes by LRCMs,air-launched stand-off ASMs,have been key weapons in deciding the outcome of the battle/war. PGMs released by UCAVs have added to the pin-point strike capability in real time. What ahs also made a resurgence has been the use of legacy strat. bombers like Bears,Backfires,B-52s,etc.,in delivering massive-sized ordnance (MOAB<etc.),massed bombing runs with dumb bombs and also launching LRCM attacks,thanks to their large payload capability.These "bomb trucks" are still in vogue.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby jamwal » 25 Sep 2017 17:14

What exact targets do you have in mind for 2000 km cruise missile ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2017 17:46

jamwal wrote:What exact targets do you have in mind for 2000 km cruise missile ?


They can always trade off longer range say ~ 1000km for more aggressive hi-Low-Low Trajectory or something that takes around the target to avoid AD without having to worry about running out of fuel

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby deejay » 25 Sep 2017 17:49

Arabian Sea attack flying over Balochistan and into slums of the loo. Poor AD from Western side in Pak as per my info.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3780
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karthik S » 25 Sep 2017 17:55

jamwal wrote:What exact targets do you have in mind for 2000 km cruise missile ?


2000KM will cover Chengdu, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Xi'an and HK. HSR lines, other high value targets between Xi'an and HK. Unlike Pak, China has lot of high value targets that can be taken out by LRCMs.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 25 Sep 2017 18:05

A 2000 km range cruise missile with a 500 or 1000 kg conventional warhead will do puny and worthless damage. Arming it with a nuclear warhead would be something useful in destructive power but it will sit somewhere and not get used.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3780
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karthik S » 25 Sep 2017 20:52

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 2m2 minutes ago
More
BTW, Japan is supplying an AESA seeker for a Meteor BVRAAM variant as part of a joint project with Britain.

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 1m1 minute ago
More
Given India's purchase of the Meteor as part of the Rafale package, & our relationship with both countries, we should try to get a looksee.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2017 21:00

shiv wrote:A 2000 km range cruise missile with a 500 or 1000 kg conventional warhead will do puny and worthless damage. Arming it with a nuclear warhead would be something useful in destructive power but it will sit somewhere and not get used.


Shiv guru , Dont know what punny damage would mean but we were shown video here at BRF of US Smart Bomb JDAM 500 lb weapon with ~90 kg warhead penetrating hardened Air Shelter and Kalbir with 500 kg warhead doing devastating damage in Syria

Any thing nuclear is more devastating even 0.1 sub kilo ton will do more damage than most conventional weapon perhaps more than MOAB or FOAB too

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 25 Sep 2017 22:09

Austin - one bomb landing 2000 km away is peanuts. No air base, army base, terror camp, railway station, power station or any target of note will be knocked out by one such bomb. If we sent 50 or 60 cruise missiles then we are talking real damage. Now what would be the cost of that?

A city like Chengdu may have 200 or 300 factories - each of which will need at least 2-3 hits each. Hitting such targets in a war will also have no immediate impact on the war and may also have no long term impact.

On the other hand a single pinpoint cruise missile with 500/1000 kg TNT could be great for C&C centers, radar sites, ships etc 2-3 may do a good job against oil storage facilities - but it in a conflict the oil supplies to the frontline will be more crucial than oil depots 2000 km away.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2017 22:37

:x
shiv wrote:Austin - one bomb landing 2000 km away is peanuts. No air base, army base, terror camp, railway station, power station or any target of note will be knocked out by one such bomb. If we sent 50 or 60 cruise missiles then we are talking real damage. Now what would be the cost of that?

A city like Chengdu may have 200 or 300 factories - each of which will need at least 2-3 hits each. Hitting such targets in a war will also have no immediate impact on the war and may also have no long term impact.

On the other hand a single pinpoint cruise missile with 500/1000 kg TNT could be great for C&C centers, radar sites, ships etc 2-3 may do a good job against oil storage facilities - but it in a conflict the oil supplies to the frontline will be more crucial than oil depots 2000 km away.


Yes but using nuclear weapons would need a different political and strategic calculation something we have not seen since they used over Japan and hopefully won't have to see it at all.

You can still fire many dozen of cruise missile at the targets even against dense air defence to hit say half dozen target let's assume 80-90% of those CM gets intercepted then launch 1 squadron of Fighter against same target and risk loosing 30% of pilot and aircraft assuming 70% of strike package is successful but that's a skewed ratio I am assuming in favour of Fighter.

I don't think any one has used a 2000 km missile to reach a target that far due to time needed to travel those distance will be in hours assuming an average speed of 0.6-0.7 Mach , likely those range will be traded of in other ways to avoid radar and AD net by shaping it's trajectory

As an example recent conflict in Syria have seen Russian using Kh-101 with range of 4000 km and kalbir of 2500 km not used at max range 1500 km to min range of 300-400 km.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2126
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby kit » 25 Sep 2017 22:38

shiv wrote:Austin - one bomb landing 2000 km away is peanuts. No air base, army base, terror camp, railway station, power station or any target of note will be knocked out by one such bomb. If we sent 50 or 60 cruise missiles then we are talking real damage. Now what would be the cost of that?

A city like Chengdu may have 200 or 300 factories - each of which will need at least 2-3 hits each. Hitting such targets in a war will also have no immediate impact on the war and may also have no long-term impact.

On the other hand, a single pinpoint cruise missile with 500/1000 kg TNT could be great for C&C centres, radar sites, ships etc 2-3 may do a good job against oil storage facilities - but it in a conflict the oil supplies to the frontline will be more crucial than oil depots 2000 km away.


even 60 "cheaper cruise missiles" are expensive ., and can be redundant if facing sophisticated multi-layered defences., hence the idea of swarm attacks of mini-missiles / drones .imagine what a swarm attack of 200 smart missiles on a single target would do

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2017 23:03

Against a credible threat cruise missiles are great at going after fixed, non fortified command and control sites, communication nodes and radar sites. Depots, warehouses, etc that are usually well protected can also be thoroughly tested by a coordinated ALCM/GLCM/SLCM attack. Obviously they are not optimal for taking out full fledged air bases (for a prolonged period of time), or going after military and civilian infrastructure targets (besides key roads, bridges etc) unless your defense budgets allow you to size up your cruise missile inventory to account for all those potential target sets. At some point the cost equation demands that you pursue more survivable ways that can deliver cheaper munitions on a very large number of targets.

hence the idea of swarm attacks of mini-missiles / drones .imagine what a swarm attack of 200 smart missiles on a single target would do


Laws of physics still apply. The missile still has to be of a certain size and weight to get from point A to point B. Propulsion drives cost although you can work around warhead and sensor costs if you are purely fielding swarming systems where you don't want them to be as survivable as your primary ALCM. Great for SEAD as well but again if you want range and some survivability that is reflected in the propulsion trades which then determine overall cost.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rkhanna and 47 guests