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: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Mar 2018 07:45

Cosmo_R wrote:
shiv wrote:IMO most deadly would be maritime. From Malacca to the Persian gulf ships will be in trouble


Agreed. Dense concentration of HVT. But what role do the SU30MK/Brahmos play in this? Andamans—yes but west of that?

Why? What is different about West of Andamans. Take off from peninsula - add 2000 km Su-30 radius + 300 km Brahmos range. Tkaes you all the way up to Persian gulf. Maldives and the Indian ocean sea lanes
Indian Ocean Sea lanes
Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 24 Mar 2018 08:08

Aditya_V wrote:We are slowly now making various parts of the Missile which will make much more cheaper and cost efficient to field in Numbers.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2017/12/05/godrej-to-begin-serial-production-of-supersonic-brahmos-missile-system


Relevant parts...



... Godrej & Boyce received a fresh order to supply airframe fuel management systems for the BrahMos Air-Launched Cruise Missile.

BrahMos Aerospace Ltd., a 50.50:49.50, joint venture between India’s Defence Research Development Organisation and its Russian counterpart has placed an order for an additional 100 airframes from Godrej. “We currently produce two a month, we plan to ramp it up to four in some time,” said Jamshyd Godrej, chairman of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.

Godrej & Boyce, which has been associated with BrahMos since the year 2000, recently completed the supply of its 100th airframe for the missile. “It took us ten years to understand and develop the technology to master BrahMos Missile,” said Godrej. “We will deliver the additional 100 airframes in the next 3-5 years,” he added.

...

The air version currently has 65 percent of sub-systems indigenously manufactured, while a little more than 50 percent of the entire missile is indigenously produced, said Sudhir Mishra, managing director and chief executive officer of BrahMos Aerospace and director general of the joint venture DRDO-BrahMos. This indigenous component could increase to little over 60 percent in the next 1-2 years, Mishra said.

“I would like entire 100 percent of missile to be manufactured in India, but we want our Russian partners to contribute in this joint venture,” he added.


BrahMos Aerospace is currently working on a miniature version of the missile, called BrahMos NG. The mini version of the missile is still in the design stage and development is a few years away, said Mishra.

India test fired the air version of BrahMos on Nov. 22 from air to sea. Currently, the Sukhoi can carry only one BrahMos at a time. The mini version of BrahMos will enable Sukhois to carry multiple missiles. The air force is expected to undertake a few more tests before inducting it.


BrahMos Aerospace is also looking at extending the missile’s range after India’s full membership to the Missile Technology Control Regime last year, which removed the cap on range to the BrahMos cruise missile. This will allow India to look at developing missiles with an over 300-kilometre range. In March this year, India test fired the extended range missile to hit a target beyond 400 km.



raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby raghava » 24 Mar 2018 11:14

JayS wrote:Awesome. Seeker details available..?

In AI-2017, Alpha Tech showcased their RF seeker, they said its meant for Brahmos. They had a smaller version for AAM as well.


Alpha, Dalta & Ecilon...

Oh forgive my spelling... I meant Alpha, Delta & Epsilon of course... :D

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 622
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby jaysimha » 24 Mar 2018 11:25

yes sir yes sir three bags full....

Alpha Tech RF Seeker..

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Mar 2018 11:44

Are these RF seekers AESA basically?? Alpha Tech is production partner for LRDE AESA TR modules, including that for Uttam.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby raghava » 24 Mar 2018 12:19

raghava wrote:
Alpha, Dalta & Ecilon...

Oh forgive my spelling... I meant Alpha, Delta & Epsilon of course... :D


Excuse the riddles, I was being careful as i didn't know if this information was public knowledge yet. But now I found out it is.

Brahmos had 3 suppliers to choose from for the seeker. Alpha Design Technologies, Data Patterns and ECIL. The recent test was conducted using ECIL's seeker.

The present Russian seeker is a RF Monopulse seeker. Both Alpha Design Tech and Data Patterns had ongoing projects to develop an indigenous RF monopulse seeker. Parallely, ECIL and Data Patterns had ongoing development projects for an indigenous RF SCAN MMW imaging seeker.

Since the recent test happened with ECIL's seeker, i would suspect it was the RF SCAN seeker that was tested. More evidence in that direction is the fact that what was tested was a land attack variant and that IAF officials were present during the recent test as per news reports.
Imaging seekers - as you wise folk already know help target individual targets in a highly cluttered environment.

But all this is only my opinion so TFIW

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 622
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby jaysimha » 24 Mar 2018 12:27

Brahmand.com
1 Apr, 2016
Indian developing seekers for BRAHMOS, other missile: Sidhir Mishra

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/2016/april/din-01Apr2016.pdf

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10167
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby pankajs » 24 Mar 2018 16:32

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... ng-it.html
How India’s ASTRA Air-To-Air Missile Is Quietly Killing It
Just before noon on September 14 last year, an 11-foot long missile zoomed off from the wing of an Indian Air Force Su-30 MKI fighter jet about 120 kilometers off India’s east coast. Leaving behind a pulse of purple flame, the Astra careened off into the invisible horizon. Tracked both by the two pilots in the jet, another Su-30 flying some distance away as well as an observation team stationed on a ship in the Bay of Bengal, the Astra roared through thin air over a steady cloud deck over 50 kilometers from the jet that fired it, finally smashing into a bright orange British-built BTT-3 Banshee target drone.

The missile had just been fired for the first time, not with a dummy warhead, but with the kind of warhead that would be used against an actual enemy aircraft. The 15 kilogram warhead, built by the DRDO’s Chandigarh-based Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) is like to have exploded bare feet away from the Banshee, bringing its target down towards the sea in a scattered cloud of debris. Later that day, the same Su-30 jet fired another missile, this time at a range much closer to the missile’s maximum range of 75 kilometers. This time too, the weapon blew effortlessly apart its target.

But there was something else in the September tests that had gladdened hearts. Two of the seven Astra missiles tested had undergone a crucial modification. The very heart of their ability to hunt down aircraft in the air, their seeker, had been replaced. The existing Russian Agat 9B1103M active radar seeker used on the Astra had been replaced with an Indian Ku-band seeker developed by the DRDO’s Research Center Imarat (RCI) in Hyderabad. While the Indian Air Force has taken on the task of further testing of the Astra as part of a ‘capability discovery’ exercise with the new seeker this year (in coordination with the DRDO), the very fact that it has committed precious financial resources to pre-production units is proof of its pleasure.
It has been notoriously difficult in the past for the DRDO to persuade its customers to agree to such a ‘concurrent engineering’ approach, given that the military has traditionally been suspicious of the DRDO’s promises. This time, the IAF has been confident enough to sidestep the phased development approach. For Astra project director Dr S. Venugopal and his team, that’s an enormous show of faith.
The Astra has an officially stated range of 75 kilometers. Sanctioned as a project in March 2004 with a budget of just under $150 million (Rs 955 crore), the project missed its completion deadline of February 2013 for a variety of reasons, and now aims to officially wrap everything up by December this year. Crucially, the project team has decided it can complete the task at hand on the Astra Mk.1 without additional funds — a rarity in the pantheon of indigenous development.

The Astra project also involves over 50 public and private firms, leading to consortium of industries building the weapon the system through its final integration line at Bharat Dynamics Ltd in Telangana. Best of all, the systems being proved on the Astra will likely spawn of fully family of air defence weapons from DRDO, all sporting significantly higher indigenous content than in-service systems.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Haridas » 25 Mar 2018 23:00

JayS wrote:Are these RF seekers AESA basically?? Alpha Tech is production partner for LRDE AESA TR modules, including that for Uttam.

The mono pulse seeker is not AESA. No advantage to AESA but only huge downside for the application & requirement.

For the image rf seeker AESA will be useful idea, but imho it will have other more important tech challanges to overcome becoz it has to operate at so much higher freq mmw band.

Generic issue, see http://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves (at the end see Dr JC Bose , he built 60 GHz source & detector using jute made channel -105 years ago)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 06:13

Pankajs,

Try to post the warhead pictures also.
Very interesting.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6330
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby disha » 26 Mar 2018 09:09

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
Agreed. Dense concentration of HVT. But what role do the SU30MK/Brahmos play in this? Andamans—yes but west of that?

Why? What is different about West of Andamans. Take off from peninsula - add 2000 km Su-30 radius + 300 km Brahmos range. Tkaes you all the way up to Persian gulf. Maldives and the Indian ocean sea lanes
Indian Ocean Sea lanes
Image


Cosmo_R., If I say that with

Su-30 MKI + Brahmos

China's Sanya naval base - South of its hainan island is very much within range and can be taken out in an hostile conflict. Of course there is the question of avoiding the radars but range is not an issue.

Here is the deal., Su-30 MKi range is 2800 Kms + Brahmos 300 kms (tested to >400 kms) = 3100 kms is far greater than the 2100 Kms needed to bomb Sanya (Hainan) from Dibrugarh Assam.

Not done before? Peshawar was considered the edge where no one would reach, leave alone dare to reach and bomb them. Done and dusted in 1965 using canberra bombers.

Here Su30-MKI with Brahmos has a role to play in NE. All it has to do is take off from Dibrugarh, with two tanks and one Brahmos and several A2A missiles., 4 loaded with Brahmos and 4 as protection take off from Dibrugarh, turn towards Kunming, then to Nanning and fire their missiles. In fact, taking off from Dibrugarh and flying lo-lo within the protections of the mountains, the Su-30 MKI will not be traceable until they show up near Kunming.

Now not only they have to protect their south from super sonic Brahmos, but also protect their north.

Will Chinese assume that Indians will be sitting quiet with their "300 Km Brahmos" and "only one Brahmos per Su-30 Mki"? What happens if the Brahmos is now 900 Kms?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10167
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby pankajs » 26 Mar 2018 18:13

ramana wrote:Pankajs,

Try to post the warhead pictures also.
Very interesting.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... ng-it.html
Image
Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5216
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Rakesh » 27 Mar 2018 00:22

Why The BrahMos Missile Test On March 22 Is An Indian Gamechanger
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... anger.html

Image

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby kit » 27 Mar 2018 02:55

Haridas wrote:
JayS wrote:Are these RF seekers AESA basically?? Alpha Tech is production partner for LRDE AESA TR modules, including that for Uttam.

The mono pulse seeker is not AESA. No advantage to AESA but only huge downside for the application & requirement.

For the image rf seeker AESA will be useful idea, but imho it will have other more important tech challanges to overcome becoz it has to operate at so much higher freq mmw band.

Generic issue, see http://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves (at the end see Dr JC Bose , he built 60 GHz source & detector using jute made channel -105 years ago)


i suppose the AESA seeker would be more immune to ECM , besides dual mode seekers seem to be in vogue esp in AAMs

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3862
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Kartik » 27 Mar 2018 07:12

DRDO newsletter with updates on Akash for the IAF and IA, such as details on how many systems have been supplied. Also mentions that RFP from IA for 2 more RF seeker equipped Akash worth Rs 10,000 crores is expected soon.

link to DRDO newsletter

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62481
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 27 Mar 2018 10:31

is there a dish or flat face radar inside the russian seeker cone or the cone itself is somehow a antenna?
theirs looks crude and analogish. our looks smarter, more soothing and more compute capable.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby JTull » 27 Mar 2018 13:23

Not sure about the above source of image of Russian seeker. Here are couple from ausairpower

Image

Image


dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby dinesha » 29 Mar 2018 18:42

Interesting tweet about trailer mounted Missile Object Tracking Radar (MOTR) jointly developed by ISRO and DRDO..
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 0288526342

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21584
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 01 Apr 2018 07:20

US closely watching India’s plan to buy S-400 air defence system from Russia

A US state department spokesperson said on Friday in response to a question on whether the S-400 deal could run into CAATSA trouble, “We have discussed CAATSA with the government of India, and the US intends to work with our partners to help them identify and avoid engaging in potentially sanctionable activity.”

The spokesperson added: “We are engaging with a range of countries to avert future defence acquisitions, and the secretary of state will take appropriate action when and if we determine sanctionable activity has occurred.”

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62481
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 01 Apr 2018 07:34

And they be perfectly ok selling us billion dollar boat anchors like thaad and pac3 lol
Disarmament and world peace at its best

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21584
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 04 Apr 2018 21:13

Delivery contract on S-400 systems for India won’t be signed-sources

MOSCOW, April 4. /TASS/. A contract for the delivery of S-400 Triumf missile systems to India won’t be signed during the current visit by Indian Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to Moscow, a source in military-diplomatic circles told TASS on the sidelines of the Moscow international security conference on Wednesday.

"All the technical parameters of the contract have been fully agreed; however, the sides have not yet agreed on the price of the deal," the source said.

Some media outlets earlier reported that India and Russia were close to signing a contract on the delivery of S-400 air defense missile systems and that its signing might take place during Sitharaman’s visit to Moscow.

At the same time, the source was optimistic about the prospects of signing the S-400 deal.

"The sides are continuing the negotiations on this sole issue that has not yet been agreed and there are no doubts that the document will be signed shortly," the source noted.



More:
http://tass.com/defense/997813

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2018 21:19

Singha wrote:And they be perfectly ok selling us billion dollar boat anchors like thaad and pac3 lol
Disarmament and world peace at its best


This is in relation to any CAATSA issues and not specific to India acquiring missile defenses or disarmament, world peace or anything else. The end result of this will likely be that India will be given an exception and the law set aside.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... 115-44.pdf

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 21:28

I would like to remind members this is Bharat-Rakshak Forum and not justify everyone else forum.
I don't care a rats behind as to what ropes US has tied itself with.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1214
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby sudeepj » 05 Apr 2018 05:02

How can we expect an S400 to protect against Cheen that is itself a user of the system? This would be like trying to buy F16s back in 89.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby PratikDas » 05 Apr 2018 07:49

sudeepj wrote:How can we expect an S400 to protect against Cheen that is itself a user of the system? This would be like trying to buy F16s back in 89.

The S-400 is a surface to air missile system with these types of targets according to Wikipedia:
  • Strategic bombers such as the B-1, B-2,FB-111 and B-52H
  • Electronic warfare airplanes such as the EF-111A and EA-6
  • Reconnaissance airplanes such as the TR-1
  • Early-warning radar airplanes such as the E-3A and E-2C
  • Fighter airplanes such as the F-15, F-16, F-35 and F-22
  • Strategic cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk
  • Ballistic missiles (range up to 3,500 km)

It is isn't meant to be fired against other S-400 missiles which reach up to Mach 5.9

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 213
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby pravula » 05 Apr 2018 08:39

I think his point is, China can and will study the system and know how to bypass it. IMHO, so can we, meaning their S-400 will be useless against us.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21584
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2018 14:43

It is not that MOD is not aware that China and other countries operate or will operate S-400 and S-400 is just one part of multi-layered SAM system India will deploy ..it is also not necessary if two parties employ the same system it would fare the same , tactics , employment ,training will equally matter if not more when it comes to SAM warfare, As eg Serbia managed to do exceedingly well with 60-70's SAM in balkan conflict where the Arabs failed miserably not because they didn't have the same system but their tactics , training and combat deployment were dynamic and evolved as war progressed.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Apr 2018 15:33

And also terrain matters. Serbs had good cover whereas the Arabs are virtually naked in the desert

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby John » 05 Apr 2018 17:23

Shooting down 2 AC is largely a sign of success and these SAM were upgraded by Russian techs and maintained by Serbians far better than Iraqis did. Most effective SAM employed by Iraq was SA-6 which was obsolete during GW where as Serbians had updated S-125 to be far more potent.

People forget close to 73 coalition ACs where lost in GW. Keep in mind the conflict themselves were far different apart from Terrain, Serbian conflict was limited to primarily to Kosovo and there were lot of limitations on what ground targets can be engaged by NATO due to fear of Russian intervention.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2018 17:37

We must also be relative when we try to see the degree to which SAMs and ADs performed during a conflict. Do note that in Vietnam the US lost more than 1500 fixed-wing aircraft (and thousands more of rotary winged aircraft) with more than a third of that attributed to SAMs. More than 15 B-52s were lost due to enemy fire alone. Relative to that performance (SAM and AAA) both Iraq and Kosovo were fairly insignificant.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21584
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2018 19:52

John wrote:Shooting down 2 AC is largely a sign of success and these SAM were upgraded by Russian techs and maintained by Serbians far better than Iraqis did. Most effective SAM employed by Iraq was SA-6 which was obsolete during GW where as Serbians had updated S-125 to be far more potent.

People forget close to 73 coalition ACs where lost in GW. Keep in mind the conflict themselves were far different apart from Terrain, Serbian conflict was limited to primarily to Kosovo and there were lot of limitations on what ground targets can be engaged by NATO due to fear of Russian intervention.


They shot more than 2 AC .... and the biggest achievement is they managed to keep their AD intact in presense of over whelming offensive capability .Good review done by APA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2018 20:09

The campaign involved about 1000 aircraft which flew close to 40,000 sorties counting only NATO numbers. Confirmed US losses were iirc 3 fixed-wing/manned and about two dozen fixed-wing/unmanned. I don't have a count of the rotary winged assets lost but it would likely be higher. Add to that NATO (non-US) losses and then also add aircraft damaged but not downed. Most losses (over the entire campaign and comparing both sides) during the air-campaign happened when aircraft were destroyed on the ground as a result of the offensive campaign. By historic standards, this was a relatively safe campaign given how much damage AAA and SAMs have done during war if one expanded it out by decades (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Arab/Israeli, India/Pak etc). It would be a stretch by most standards to get off 30-40 aircraft out of 30-40K sorties and call it exceedingly well...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421867.pdf
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Apr 2018 20:53, edited 3 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 05 Apr 2018 20:34

pankajs wrote:
ramana wrote:Pankajs,

Try to post the warhead pictures also.
Very interesting.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... ng-it.html
Image
Image



PankajS, Thank you so much.

The ASTRA warhead is what is known as pre-fragmented warhead (PF WH)

They are using Tungsten Alloy(TA) cubes over ~2000 of them.

The explosive will drive these TA cubes with very high velocity to hit the incoming aircraft structure.

Tungsten is practically most dense usable alloy. Only depleted Uranium is better.

Since the w/h is cylindrical the burst pattern will be in effect spherical. So some wastage but then they don't know what evasive maneuvers the incoming aircraft is taking. So all in all a good choice.
The great Maximillian Held of MBB pioneered these PF war head for missiles.
He also proposed an end charge for directional war head. But that assumes the target is stationary.

One other thin I note is the Astra W/H has an off axis channel or air gap.

Wonder is that causes a directional effect in the functioning of the W/H.

I think the Astra W/H will be clocked to have the side closer to the air channel pointing downwards or to ground.

So less fragments go in that direction.
Nice details in the design.
GD would love this!!!

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 05 Apr 2018 20:37

Austin wrote:
John wrote:Shooting down 2 AC is largely a sign of success and these SAM were upgraded by Russian techs and maintained by Serbians far better than Iraqis did. Most effective SAM employed by Iraq was SA-6 which was obsolete during GW where as Serbians had updated S-125 to be far more potent.

People forget close to 73 coalition ACs where lost in GW. Keep in mind the conflict themselves were far different apart from Terrain, Serbian conflict was limited to primarily to Kosovo and there were lot of limitations on what ground targets can be engaged by NATO due to fear of Russian intervention.


They shot more than 2 AC .... and the biggest achievement is they managed to keep their AD intact in presense of over whelming offensive capability .Good review done by APA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

^^^^^^^^
As I understand it: The Russian assistance was pivotal. They were on the ground prior to the start of the NATO bombing campaign. One critical preparation they put in place, was to program the cellphone and other transmitting antennae/stations to broadcast at high power. The extra RF energy in the air was done on purpose to saturate the area; so disturbances could be detected. From what I gather, the NATO planes shot down were cued to target from this RF energy being picked-up from a vastly different angle. Remember, stealth by shape is just begging for networked radar as an obstacle. That is the game. Since the Serbs didn't have "all that", the Russians put in place this 'make-work' solution, and it worked, on these occasions.

Question for the Gurus:
How much energy, expressed as w/sq.M (given a specified frequency -- like the sweeping moment of a radar beam across a piece of sky); how much of this RF energy would it take to increase the surface temperature of a stealth aircraft by 0.2 degrees Celsius (assuming this is detectable by current generation IRST)? Discuss with feasibility potential in mind, WRT a combat system whereby a highly focused RADAR beam sweeps the sky while the IRST looks at the same airspace, attempting to detect that temperature jump in the RAM. Remember: RAM converts RF energy into heat, when those iron balls oscillate in that delicate layer of paint.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21584
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2018 20:49

The Russians were not in ground , its just that Serbs were trained to far higher standard as they were Warsaw country and most important part is they were dynamic in their thinking and kept improvising on their weapon and maintained good discipline and did not go into nervous breakdown due to overwhelming air superiority of allied forces. Its their men that won the day for them more than their arms.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 05 Apr 2018 20:56

Ravi, You will get better success in detecting aircraft wakes using weather radar!

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby John » 05 Apr 2018 21:05

Austin wrote:
John wrote:Shooting down 2 AC is largely a sign of success and these SAM were upgraded by Russian techs and maintained by Serbians far better than Iraqis did. Most effective SAM employed by Iraq was SA-6 which was obsolete during GW where as Serbians had updated S-125 to be far more potent.

People forget close to 73 coalition ACs where lost in GW. Keep in mind the conflict themselves were far different apart from Terrain, Serbian conflict was limited to primarily to Kosovo and there were lot of limitations on what ground targets can be engaged by NATO due to fear of Russian intervention.


They shot more than 2 AC .... and the biggest achievement is they managed to keep their AD intact in presense of over whelming offensive capability .Good review done by APA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

Hmm even the link you posted says the exact same thing unless you want to call 2.1 because an aircraft got damaged :rotfl: . As i said before this was limited campaign if NATO did decide to engage in manner similar to GW most of air defense would been neutralized in days (with high collateral damage).

A total of 815 SAMs were fired at NATO aircraft, of which 665 were radar guided SA-3 and SA-6 rounds. One F-16C and one F-117A were killed by SAM shots, and one F-117A suffered light damage from a near miss. Many SAM shots were unguided due to the radar shutting down to avoid HARM shots

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1214
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby sudeepj » 05 Apr 2018 21:11

Its amazing that when F16 purchases are pushed by the OEM, Rus rakshaks jump up and down claiming Pak has the same weapon. Rus Rakshaks also want to purchase an off the shelf Rus SAM that is also operated by our primary strategic enemy, Cheen, that Rus appears to be politically, economically and strategically allied with!

What does Rus buy from India? Its a one way trade with them selling us super high priced cold war vintage weapons.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2018 21:46

John wrote:
Austin wrote:
They shot more than 2 AC .... and the biggest achievement is they managed to keep their AD intact in presense of over whelming offensive capability .Good review done by APA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

Hmm even the link you posted says the exact same thing unless you want to call 2.1 because an aircraft got damaged :rotfl: . As i said before this was limited campaign if NATO did decide to engage in manner similar to GW most of air defense would been neutralized in days (with high collateral damage).

A total of 815 SAMs were fired at NATO aircraft, of which 665 were radar guided SA-3 and SA-6 rounds. One F-16C and one F-117A were killed by SAM shots, and one F-117A suffered light damage from a near miss. Many SAM shots were unguided due to the radar shutting down to avoid HARM shots


I think another non US F-16 was shot down, and a couple of dozen UAVs. More aircraft were damaged and quite a few helicopters were downed or damaged as well. But as I said, it was an overwhelmingly one-sided air-campaign given how SAM's and AAA have done in past conflicts if one goes back a few decades.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ParGha, Rakesh and 26 guests