Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

souravB · Post by **souravB** » 04 Jun 2019 06:44

IR sir, isn't one of the role envisioned for Bramhos NG as A2A AWACS killer?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2019 08:57

souravB wrote:IR sir, isn't one of the role envisioned for Bramhos NG as A2A AWACS killer?

too clumsy airframe, not enough control surfaces to attack mobile targets. will need new seeker, eccm and warhead.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jun 2019 12:27

souravB wrote:IR sir, isn't one of the role envisioned for Bramhos NG as A2A AWACS killer?

Sir!!! Why?!!!!!

Yes, one of the roles of Brahmos NG is that of an AWACS killer. But Brahmos NG has been 5 years away for the past 10 years!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Jun 2019 13:00

souravB wrote:IR sir, isn't one of the role envisioned for Bramhos NG as A2A AWACS killer?

No. The control surfaces impart only enough manoeuvrability to take on ships that is insufficient for aircraft, even if the aircraft in a lumbering AWACS. Plus BrahMos has no ARM seeker. Better option is NGARM or Astra fitted with NGARM seeker.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Jun 2019 17:56

Size diff between NGARM and Astra Mk.1

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jun 2019 17:59

tsarkar wrote:
souravB wrote:IR sir, isn't one of the role envisioned for Bramhos NG as A2A AWACS killer?
No. The control surfaces impart only enough manoeuvrability to take on ships that is insufficient for aircraft, even if the aircraft in a lumbering AWACS. Plus BrahMos has no ARM seeker. Better option is NGARM or Astra fitted with NGARM seeker.

Wont be perfect but plan def. Exists for anti AWCS role
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economic ... 094383.cms

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jun 2019 22:00

karan, plz check yahoo a/c.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 05 Jun 2019 00:20

Karan, that is wishful thinking on part of the development organisation as it pitched to get approval and more importantly funding for the program.

In the corporate world, such statements are called “thought leadership” with the primary intention of getting funding

NGARM would be a much more manoeuvrable and effective missile than BrahMos NG

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jun 2019 00:36

LOL! I hope it happens though, we need the capability. Agree about NGARM.

Rahul - done sir.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2019 02:51

tsarkar wrote:Karan, that is wishful thinking on part of the development organisation as it pitched to get approval and more importantly funding for the program.

In the corporate world, such statements are called “thought leadership” with the primary intention of getting funding

NGARM would be a much more manoeuvrable and effective missile than BrahMos NG

Was going to post similar material but got distracted.
This type of inspirational stuff gets quoted out of context and used to deride any progress achieved.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jun 2019 11:36

NGARM should be given a active x-band aam seeker too , because the awacs will detect it coming, shut its radar and change its path. better yet chin mounted IIR as well to counter heavy jamming from the awacs. that should do it.

the awacs is the most aware and ECM equipped foe out there - so a very resilient datalink back to launch plane, IIR, x-band radar and passive home on emission and home on jam plus a RAM coated airframe is best keeping in view long lifetime of ARMs. add in long range and high speed.

this is a formidable set of requirements in propulsion and sensor pkging in the fighter carriage airframe limit. just spray and pray a crude missile to chase away the awacs will open a 15 min window and no more. enough for a balakot type op but not a full on war.

and these capabilities will be very useful against ground based radars that go silent as well , like using IIR to locate based on shapes and heat signature. a radar can go silent but its motors, electronic cabinets and generator trucks will be surely warm.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jun 2019 11:52

Karan M wrote:...
Rahul - done sir.

thanks. I will be waiting.

nam · Post by **nam** » 05 Jun 2019 12:09

NGARM already has a active seeker, to track ground radars which go silent.

Most probably mmW.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2019 12:28

Now the question about the other aspect of this, how do we defend our Phalcons and Netra, Russians have claimed that the r-73 can intercept early gen Amraam and AIM 154 Pheonix, Hopefully, we can use AAM's to coutnern any incoming missiles towards our AWACS.

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Jun 2019 12:42

Aditya_V wrote:Now the question about the other aspect of this, how do we defend our Phalcons and Netra, Russians have claimed that the r-73 can intercept early gen Amraam and AIM 154 Pheonix, Hopefully, we can use AAM's to coutnern any incoming missiles towards our AWACS.

Well good luck with that !

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2019 13:01

Well yes but a Plan has to be put in place, NGARM will be the Sword, we should also have a proper shield from Escort fighters.

Especially as 27 Feb stated, we are reluctant to break ROE's but Pakis have no rules.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Jun 2019 16:29

Supersonic cruise missile BrahMos test fired

Supersonic cruise missile BrahMos on Tuesday was test fired from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur in Odisha. The anti-ship version of the missile was launched around noon from the launch complex-3 of the ITR, Defence Research and Development (DRDO) sources said.

Described as the world's fastest supersonic cruise missile with high rate of precision and accuracy, BrahMos can be fired from land, sea and air, defence sources said.

The missile, with a strike range of around 290 km, is a strategic asset for India as it would act as a deterrence against any possible threats from China and Pakistan, they said.

Senior defence officials and scientists from DRDO and BrahMos witnessed the trial.

BrahMos is a joint venture between the DRDO and the NPOM of Russia.

The highly versatile BrahMos has been operationalised in the Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force.

BRAHMOS has established itself as a major force multiplier in modern-day complex battlefields with its impeccable land-attack, anti-ship capabilities with multi-role and multi-platform abilities.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 05 Jun 2019 16:32

^^such bot launches are not fair to us jingos, we need to be told what block, what algos had been tested. Are there any future plans to have a helicopter for B'mos

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2019 17:17

Yes we don't if this air launched or Ground launched or ship launched anti ship variant. Brahmos is a good candidate to replace the coastal defence Styx's.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 05 Jun 2019 19:45

ENS (is that a paki media channel) reporting the test failed. It was to validate some indigenous components. Not posting the idrw link

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 05 Jun 2019 19:55

ArjunPandit wrote:^^such bot launches are not fair to us jingos, we need to be told what block, what algos had been tested. Are there any future plans to have a helicopter for B'mos

Don't know how reliable but Sputnik, the Russian site claims it was a ground launched extended range version of 450 kms:

https://sputniknews.com/asia/2019060410 ... e-brahmos/

18:06 04.06.2019(updated 18:08 04.06.2019)

After a brief halt, India has once again commenced testing its weapons systems. On Tuedasy, it was the BrahMos' turn, considered to be world's fastest supersonic cruise missile. The latest BrahMos missile test is part of ongoing user trials for its extended range of around 450 km, with the version of the missile used in the launch having an upgraded guidance system as well.

India and Russia have been seeking to extend the range of the missile further and may test its capability of hitting a target around 500 km. It may be recalled that increasing the missile's range became possible after India's induction into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2016.

India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has claimed that another version of the missile with a strike range of 800 km has been under development. The missile could be tested within a year.

The 800-km range would be achieved by optimising the cruise performance of the missile's ramjet engine and through the use of composites to reduce missile's weight to allow for an enhanced fuel load. However, the changes will not impact the external dimensions of the missile.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2019 20:49

Kurup had posted NOTAM notices.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Jun 2019 21:00

I don't believe that the range is just extended to 450 Kms. The DRDO announced in February 2017 that a BrahMos missile variant with a strike range of 800 km was under development. In early 2018, news emerged that it could be tested by the end of 2018. The range also depends upon the type of profile hi-lo-hi etc.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 05 Jun 2019 21:08

long back there used to be discussion on the range of the missile, with folks claiming 800-1000k range no.s. The question is if that was just a software issue why a test should fail.
Also, just curious of any relation with the b'mos data leakage that happened almost an year back..when a guy was honeytrapped

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Jun 2019 21:46

Seems the test failed. Missile deviated after just 10kms.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 05 Jun 2019 23:21

JTull wrote:Seems the test failed. Missile deviated after just 10kms.

I take it as good news.. means they were testing something new.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jun 2019 08:28

Mounting 1 missile per SU-30 is in-efficient, and in any event it massively degrades the aircraft performance. What is needed is a bomb truck such as this TU-95 modified with 4 external hardpoints each capable of carrying 2 KH101/102 missiles with a range of 5000km. 8 missiles carried externally plus the internal bomb bay can carry an additional smaller 6x KH55 missiles. Those IndIan Navy TU-142s should be fitted with new engines, avionics, external hardpoints and become Brahmos/Nirbhay carrier platforms.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 06 Jun 2019 11:13

ldev wrote: Those IndIan Navy TU-142s should be fitted with new engines, avionics, external hardpoints and become Brahmos/Nirbhay carrier platforms.

The IN TU-142s are history. But what the IN has today are P-8Is. We need to mount the air-launched brahmos either on the P-8Is or on similar 737 platforms which will now be available dirt cheap thanks to Jet Airways' bankruptcy.

There is a precedent in the IAF where once they experimented with rolling off bombs from the back of an AN-12. Since it is difficult to throw a brahmos through the door of a moving 737

, it will be more sensible to fit a similar pylon which they developed for the SU-30 onto a 737. Think about this - we developed a pylon, a firing mechanism and a guidance system to drop a brahmos from an SU-30. So what is stopping us from doing the same from a 737 or an upgraded AN-32?

The AN-32 has the added benefit that in addition to carrying 4 externally it can carry reloads in it's cargo hold and after firing the 1st four, it can land at the nearest runway, reload and takeoff & let off another load. Targeting/guidance data can be passed onto the AN-32 via data link from the nearest fighter or AWACS/AEWS.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2019 12:11

It is not as easy as it seems. For Su30s, they developed a pylon which mounts on two tandem hard points. In other words, the aircraft had the capability to carry that load on those two hard points.

Nowhere is the Boeing 737 strong enough to carry a 2.5 ton missile. We should join a dedicated bomber program.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 06 Jun 2019 12:18

tsarkar wrote:Karan, that is wishful thinking on part of the development organisation as it pitched to get approval and more importantly funding for the program.

In the corporate world, such statements are called “thought leadership” with the primary intention of getting funding

NGARM would be a much more manoeuvrable and effective missile than BrahMos NG

Endorse tsarkar. Anything that adds to positive aura will be played up, even if unrealistic.

In reality, an air to air kill has been obtained by dropping a bomb on the other

https://theaviationist.com/2016/02/14/f ... aqi-mi-24/

Thus bombs can be marketed as capable of taking out slow moving airframes

I'd wager the NG may have a slightly better chance , but it will never be the weapon of choice, only of lack of choice/desperation

The mission profiles ought to be fairly different and lead to different trade off in design..

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 06 Jun 2019 12:27

Any confirmation yesterday Brahmos test a failure, not mentioned in many media reports

https://zeenews.india.com/india/superso ... 09123.html

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 06 Jun 2019 12:32

Indranil wrote: We should join a dedicated bomber program.

Indranil ji. Understand your first point (it's not as easy to modify - edit: see also A330MRTT for example of delays in modifying existing airliner.).

Don't understand your second point. What makes a bomber survivable for the long range penetrative high payload mission ?

Do we have access to that tech ? Is it worth it ?

If you want to move discussion to more appropriate thread, I understand..

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 06 Jun 2019 13:16

Why TU-142? We can go for TU-160. Supersonic, long range bomb truck. 40+ Tonnes of munitions.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 06 Jun 2019 13:22

Aditya_V wrote:Any confirmation yesterday Brahmos test a failure, not mentioned in many media reports

https://zeenews.india.com/india/superso ... 09123.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 86254.html

Not more than what was already mentioned (failure, deviated after 10 km and went into sea, experimental, indian subsystem) here except some unnamed sources claimed it was a success, presumably because they monitored/validated some parameters, also it was land attack. No details..

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 06 Jun 2019 13:33

Karthik S wrote:Why TU-142? We can go for TU-160. Supersonic, long range bomb truck. 40+ Tonnes of munitions.

In a sense, you can think of Tu 160 not as a bomber but as a cruise missile carrier. It carries long range standoff cruise missiles (strategic ones) rather than acting as penetrating strike bomber.

In that sense, you can think of it as a vulnerable but flexible reusable manned first stage platform

Why not skip the intermediate step ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 06 Jun 2019 14:45

Well if wishes were courses why not a 737 based Bomber, Awacs, Mid Air refueller, common platform with our LRMP no.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Jun 2019 14:55

Aditya_V wrote:Well if wishes were courses why not a 737 based Bomber, Awacs, Mid Air refueller, common platform with our LRMP no.

Why not a fighter?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2019 15:21

dale brown has a series of novels where a modified b52 called megafortress does unusual things

https://dalebrown.fandom.com/wiki/Ficti ... own_novels

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2019 15:23

imo a basic but long range airframe like a Bear is fine if the missiles it carries have a long range. the russian kh101 has a 3000km range.
if you pack shorter range missiles, then a ELO platform or atleast a supersonic bird B1 is preferable.

imo we should attempt to buy 16 refurbished b1 bombers followed by 16 new tu160 to complete our air delivered triad.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Jun 2019 16:07

Singha wrote:imo a basic but long range airframe like a Bear is fine if the missiles it carries have a long range. the russian kh101 has a 3000km range.
if you pack shorter range missiles, then a ELO platform or atleast a supersonic bird B1 is preferable.

imo we should attempt to buy 16 refurbished b1 bombers followed by 16 new tu160 to complete our air delivered triad.

We call IAF is a museum, it seems its in our blood even on BRF we are talking about maintaining 2 different bombers B1 and Tu160

... sure way to go NaPak highway with such executions.