Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

[ShivS]

Any reliable studies the effectiveness of ballistic missiles at hitting a manoeuvring warship? How is steering achieved, control surfaces or flexible thrust nozzles?

[kit]

Any reliable studies the effectiveness of ballistic missiles at hitting a manoeuvring warship? How is steering achieved, control surfaces or flexible thrust nozzles?

The Agni 1P is the direct equivalent of the Chinese DF 21D

The DF-21D is said to have a range of 1,500 km and the DF-26 a range of 4,000 km.[3] From their launch sites on the Chinese mainland, the DF-21D could cover most of the South China Sea as well as the approaches to it from the Pacific Ocean through the Bashi and Luzon Straits. The DF-26 could cover not only the South China Sea but also large parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans and beyond.

But the longer an ASBM’s range is, the more accurate the ISR data must be to target a ship at sea because greater distance would give the ship more opportunity to get out of harm’s way. Thus, China has fitted its DF-21D ASBMs with maneuverable warheads that are guided by terminal seekers. That way, even with slightly inaccurate ISR data, the terminal seeker could steer a warhead towards its target, so long as the seeker can identify that target and the guidance it provides is within the warhead’s ability to maneuver. Of course, creating such a seeker is no mean feat. It will have to function not only at hypersonic speeds, but also while encased in the plasma that forms around a warhead as it plunges through the atmosphere.

https://www.fpri.org/article/2021/05/ch ... china-sea/

[John]

Dhanush was inducted on the OPVs. Three ships as I recall.

Two Sukanya ships iirc and they were primarily for nuclear deterrence till SLBMs are ready but since they were limited to carrying only 1, short range and the long prep time shows why ship launches ballistic missile are not practical. More easier to fire them from ground based launchers or submarines.

That said I did think variant of Shaurya missile (3-4 tons launched from UVLS) will be adapted for ship launch but that never came to fruition. A canistered quasi ballistic missile with dual land attack/anti shipping role would be nice to have.

[Karan M]

Dhanush was inducted on the OPVs. Three ships as I recall.

Two Sukanya ships iirc and they were primarily for nuclear deterrence till SLBMs are ready but since they were limited to carrying only 1, short range and the long prep time shows why ship launches ballistic missile are not practical. More easier to fire them from ground based launchers or submarines.

That said I did think variant of Shaurya missile (3-4 tons launched from UVLS) will be adapted for ship launch but that never came to fruition. A canistered quasi ballistic missile with dual land attack/anti shipping role would be nice to have.

I saw them as Navy laying claim to the deterrent funding and process till Arihant got ready. LF Prithvi wasn't exactly the easiest choice as a deterrent.

Agree on Shaurya, and we might also see Smart or an Agni P variant.

[brar_w]

Any reliable studies the effectiveness of ballistic missiles at hitting a manoeuvring warship? How is steering achieved, control surfaces or flexible thrust nozzles?

No because it is going to be closely guarded secret. Given the challenges with re-entry, maneuvering, ISR, and seeker concepts, you need a lot of tests to validate the basic design, concept of employment, and demonstrate end to end against a moving representative target at range. It is just not the weapon but also the updates, guidance and having the ISR which needs to be demonstrated end to end. China attempted to do that recently with a live end to end test against a moving target at sea (after years of development on DF-21) but the intel reports from the US don't conclusively show that they were successful.

[naruto]

Supposedly K5 pics emerged on the internet.

https://twitter.com/Anshsin93355338/sta ... 32677?s=20

[jamwal]

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-10-31

Agni-V and the end of India’s northeastern dilemma

The missile brings all of China within the range of India’s delivery systems and enhances its credible nuclear deterrence.
Sandeep Unnithan

Until now, the 3,500 km Agni III, first tested in 2006, served as the backbone of the Indian nuclear deterrent against China. It could target all of Pakistan but only parts of mainland China. Even so, the rail-mobile Agni III would need for the SFC’s train-based ballistic missiles to travel for a launch to northeast India—closest to eastern and southern China. Ground-based invasions like the one China launched in 1962 can be halted by over 200,000 soldiers currently deployed by the army’s Kolkata-based Eastern Command—two Army Corps with two divisions each and a Mountain Strike Corps--for limited cross-border offensives. Indian military planners have continued to worry about the vulnerability of the 22-km-wide Siliguri corridor to a Chinese offensive from the Chumbi Valley. (The army’s Eastern Command recently conducted a week-long media tour to demonstrate its enhanced military posture.)

An Indian nuclear deterrent, operating along the road and rail axis in the sliver of India’s northeast, however, is vulnerable to tactical counter-force strikes (enemy attacks targeting the nuclear deterrent).

The Agni V has a range of between 5,000 and 5,500 km (even longer with a lighter payload) and allows Indian nuclear weapons to be launched from mainland India. Its induction thus ends the strategic dilemma Indian strategic planners face—a belligerent nuclear-armed China which could inflict punitive missile strikes all along the Indian mainland from the Tibetan plateau but whose own industrial heartlands and population centres, further away on the east coast, remain shielded from retaliatory strikes. This dilemma dates back to the 1960s when Indian strategic thinkers had begun advocating nuclear weaponisation to counter Maoist China.

[nash]

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1769241

Two different configurations on satellite navigation & electro optical sensors tested successfully

First Electro optical seeker based flight test of this class of bomb in the country

Equipped with Imaging Infra-Red Seeker technology to enhance precision strike capability of the weapon

Maximum range of 100 km

We should induct these in 1000s. A go to weapon for every UCAV and fighter jet.

[Aditya_V]

And time to time let the Pakis.know of its accuracy

[Prem Kumar]

This is like the 12th successful test of SAAW. Induct it already!

A single SU-30 MKI, loaded with SAAWs can put an airbase out of operation for a long while. Not to mention SEAD/DEAD missions. A real game-changer, but only if ordered in massive quantities!

Its raining smart munitions, with the long range glide bomb tested a couple of days back

[KSingh]

This is like the 12th successful test of SAAW. Induct it already!

A single SU-30 MKI, loaded with SAAWs can put an airbase out of operation for a long while. Not to mention SEAD/DEAD missions. A real game-changer, but only if ordered in massive quantities!

Its raining smart munitions, with the long range glide bomb tested a couple of days back

I thought SAAW and ASTRA MK.1 had been ordered but no news since?

[ramana]

The satnav versions are fully tested.
Above test is first electro-optical version tested.

[Aditya_V]

The satnav versions are fully tested.
Above test is first electro-optical version tested.

It is really good, it is only a matter of time before, its put on AAMs , SAM s etc

[Prem Kumar]

The official press release of the latest SAAW test was also a bit confusing. It mentioned electro-optical & IIR seeker in the same sentence.

Electro optical configuration of the system is equipped with Imaging Infra-Red (IIR) Seeker technology enhancing the precision strike capability of the weapon.

[Vicky]

The official press release of the latest SAAW test was also a bit confusing. It mentioned electro-optical & IIR seeker in the same sentence.

Electro optical configuration of the system is equipped with Imaging Infra-Red (IIR) Seeker technology enhancing the precision strike capability of the weapon.

Nothing confusing. EO-SAAW was always planned to be an IIR seeker. EO as a classification doesn't just mean visible spectrum, it covers IR too and includes a larger set of seekers including IR, Visible EO, IIR, FLIR.
IIR is better than a Visible spectrum seeker anyday.

[Prem Kumar]

Read the report. It mentions EO seeker and IIR seeker. For man-in-the-middle guidance (like what was once planned for Helina), visible-spectrum EO seeker helps the WSO better differentiate from a group of targets.

[Pratyush]

Now the SAAW is approaching clearance for service.

1) A 250 to 400 km weapon using the warhead, satnav, IIR seekers, flight control system, packaged in to a new light weight airframe powered by a micro gas turbine.

Use case for this weapon will be to deal with area denial systems of the enemy.

2) once the above system is ready, then build a new system with a radar jammer/ decoy/ to be deployed for independent operations.

[Atmavik]

Read the report. It mentions EO seeker and IIR seeker. For man-in-the-middle guidance (like what was once planned for Helina), visible-spectrum EO seeker helps the WSO better differentiate from a group of targets.

By man in the middle. Do you mean sf pathfinders will paint a target for the saaw to home-in on? US sf have used this tactic well in af-pak

[KiranM]

Read the report. It mentions EO seeker and IIR seeker. For man-in-the-middle guidance (like what was once planned for Helina), visible-spectrum EO seeker helps the WSO better differentiate from a group of targets.

By man in the middle. Do you mean sf pathfinders will paint a target for the saaw to home-in on? US sf have used this tactic well in af-pak

Man in the middle is WSO - Weapon System Operator, he mentioned. Who will be controlling better with EO sensor. Perhaps with image intensification through CCD. IIR needs the objects to have temperature differentials. Will be difficult if you want to target specific buildings or assets in an airbase.

[ramana]

So how does SAAW compare to SPICE 250?
https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2021/ ... -military/

[hnair]

A while back (circa 2019), some of us were wondering if SAAW/Spice250 was a joint program like MRSAM/Barak8. The aero-frame is identical. Also IIRC, the electro optical seeker is IIR with some plan for all weather mmw.

Link on start of forum discussion with Karan M and Indranil

[ramana]

The SAAW is a response to an IAF requirement* for a 125 kg class weapon. The other requirement was for a 1000 kg guided bomb.
That is answered by the LRB which also completed testing in the sat-nav guidance version.
( viewtopic.php?p=2521629#p2521629 )

* KaranM had found the pdf of this requirement and posted here.

My request for comparing the SAAW to SPICE 250 was to do a parameter comparison.
We know quite a lot about SAAW now.

(viewtopic.php?p=2521632#p2521632)

[ShivS]

Any reliable studies the effectiveness of ballistic missiles at hitting a manoeuvring warship? How is steering achieved, control surfaces or flexible thrust nozzles?

The Agni 1P is the direct equivalent of the Chinese DF 21D

The DF-21D is said to have a range of 1,500 km and the DF-26 a range of 4,000 km.[3] From their launch sites on the Chinese mainland, the DF-21D could cover most of the South China Sea as well as the approaches to it from the Pacific Ocean through the Bashi and Luzon Straits. The DF-26 could cover not only the South China Sea but also large parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans and beyond.
]

https://www.fpri.org/article/2021/05/ch ... china-sea/

This is a hellish problem to solve - a terminal seeker is absolutely necessary else any claim to hit a manouvering warship is not credible. Even with a one ton warhead an impact 50-75 m away would not incapacitate a modern carrier and a warship at flank speed would cover that in 5-7 seconds.

[ShivS]

This is like the 12th successful test of SAAW. Induct it already!

A single SU-30 MKI, loaded with SAAWs can put an airbase out of operation for a long while. Not to mention SEAD/DEAD missions. A real game-changer, but only if ordered in massive quantities!

Very hard to knock out an airbase for even 24 hours. Very hardened targets that are designed to absorb punishment.

[Aditya_V]

This is like the 12th successful test of SAAW. Induct it already!

A single SU-30 MKI, loaded with SAAWs can put an airbase out of operation for a long while. Not to mention SEAD/DEAD missions. A real game-changer, but only if ordered in massive quantities!

Very hard to knock out an airbase for even 24 hours. Very hardened targets that are designed to absorb punishment.

Its hard, but with enough BM,CM, Bombs, multiple craters, destroying Aircraft, spares, munitions, Fuel on the ground, plus destroying Buildings killing pilots etc its is doable and must for us.

First BM, Punches some holes in the Runways, Brahmos takes down ORP Aircraft, base Radars, Aircraft with SAAW take out key run way points, SAM Defenses from a distance, then more 250KG Bombs hit fighters in Bomb HAS bays, Base Spares depot, Ammo Depot, Fuel depot, AAA, 1500KG Bombs must take out the Base Buildings, Mess etc.

Its will take overall 600-800 hits. But World War 2, 1967 Arab Israeli War, Bangladesh War- in 1971, 1991 Gulf war. AIr Domination and knocking out enemy Air bases is the key to victory- but is not easy at all

[Pratyush]

An airfield is not just runways or HAS. It's radars, communication systems, fuel pipelines, ammunition storage areas, ammunition arming areas. Along with vehicle such as fuel bowsers, aircraft tug, ammunition trucks.

The later types of airfield targets don't really require massive bombs. What they actually need are very very accurate low to medium powered bombs. Delivered with pin point accuracy.

These will have a disproportionate effects on the ability of the airfield to conduct flight operations.

[Aditya_V]

The First strikes disabling air defenses and Runways temporarily and simultaneously across Airbases is the key.

In Our cases taking out HQ-9, Sakesar Radar, PAF, PA forward radars and simultaneously attacking, PAF Miawali, Murid, Chaklala, Shor Kot road, PAF Jacocabad, PAF Mauripur, PAF Bholari, PAC KAMRA, PAF Kohat, PAF Risalpur and then move on to secondary bases.

These have to hit repeatedly and accurately. Taking out the PAF and PN, will Suck Morale out of the PA.

[Prem Kumar]

Saw an exhaust-like hole at the rear of SAAW + a bunch of tiny holes at the sides at the rear. Given there is no propulsion, are these for making micro-adjustments for trajectory control? Are there gas thrusters within?

[Prem Kumar]

On a different note, check out this article by Shishir Gupta about the Long Range Glide bomb

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 80880.html

1) Its interesting that this kind of a test was done in Balasore. Usually bomb tests like SAAW are done in Pokhran
2) He says the target was 100 Km away at "sea"! Very interesting
3) Says it hit the target that was lased. Wonder how they managed this at sea? Perhaps a floating target (or an island?) which was lased by a UAV or another Sukhoi? At 100 Km, the launcher aircraft wasn't lasing his own target. This would've meant a very sophisticated test setup and a high accuracy bomb!

Also wondering if this is a different bomb from Garuda/Garuthma? When those were tested, they were GPS guided. Or maybe this is an enhanced version which takes GPS co-ordinates, but does endgame seeking using a semi-active laser homer. Which also means that it could potentially hit moving targets too (not that we would hit a moving target with a 1000 Kg bomb, but the capability is interesting nevertheless & could be adapted to SAAW)

[ShivS]

Bigger bomb - 1000 kgs vs 500.

[ramana]

The Pershing missile solved the target identification and guidance problem solved in the 1970s. So it's not like an impossible thing.
In 1990s itself retired USN officers used to worry about Agni as an anti-carrier weapon.

[ramana]

On a different note, check out this article by Shishir Gupta about the Long Range Glide bomb

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 80880.html

...

Also wondering if this is a different bomb from Garuda/Garuthma? When those were tested, they were GPS guided. Or maybe this is an enhanced version which takes GPS co-ordinates, but does endgame seeking using a semi-active laser homer. Which also means that it could potentially hit moving targets too (not that we would hit a moving target with a 1000 Kg bomb, but the capability is interesting nevertheless & could be adapted to SAAW)

DRDO has made a few 1000 kgs bombs.
LRB is a laser-guided 1000 kg. Similar to Paveway-2 of US.
Then they have JDAM type like those two you mention also called IGB Inertial Guided Bomb.

[John]

The Pershing missile solved the target identification and guidance problem solved in the 1970s. So it's not like an impossible thing.
In 1990s itself retired USN officers used to worry about Agni as an anti-carrier weapon.

I never heard of any such USN officer worrying about Agni as anti carrier weapon, may be perhaps when it is fitted with nuclear warhead.

As for Pershing it uses radar to improve accuracy not sure it has resolution to pick up large vessels let alone strike a moving target.

[SSridhar]

Bigger bomb - 1000 kgs vs 500.

The Garuthma, which was first successfully tested in 2014, was always a 1000 Kg bomb.
Laser guidance seems to be the addition now.

[ShivS]

I think you are right. For glide bombs the IAF seems to be centralising around 2000 and 200 lb warheads with multiple seekers. Soft and hardened targets

[Prem Kumar]

Wondering what the delay in induction of Garuda & Garuthma were, considering these were already "smart" (GPS/IRNSS guided) and tested way back in 2014. Hopefully this LRB won't remain a test item forever and actually get inducted.

The LRB/Garuthma are in the Spice-2000 weight class. However, while the Spice-2000 are bolt-on kits, the LRB/Garuthma is bomb built with wings and a seeker-head. Its design looks similar to JSOW, but with a higher weight class. SAAW also has a similar design philosophy - with built-in wings and seeker

Garuthma/LRB

1) 1000 Kgs
2) IRNSS + Laser guidance
3) Spice-2000 weight class
4) Similar design to JSOW
5) Range: 100 Km

SAAW
1) 125 Kg
2) IRNSS + EO/IIR
3) Spice-250 or SDB weight class
4) Design similar to SDB
5) Range: 100 Km

What's missing is a 500 Kg weight class guided bomb. Plus, we seem to have abandoned the bolt-on kit indigenization after the Sudarshan experiment. Hopefully it gets revived after the success of the above weapons.

Garuda seems like the non-winged version with a lower range. Not sure how much trajectory correction happens without wings.

[Thakur_B]

I think Gaurav / Gautam are 250 KG class and Garuthma / Garuda are 500 KG Class. Could be wrong though.

[ldev]

A very comprehensive and long overdue article by Saurav Jha on India's asymmetrical disadvantage vs China on long range conventional strike and how India's planned Integrated Rocket Forces command will bring parity to the India China equation. Something I have long spoken off in the China armed forces thread.
India’s Coming ‘Rocket Force’: The idea of an Integrated Rocket Force is a clear signal that India is wholeheartedly embracing the era of “non-contact” warfare in a joint force environment.

In September 2021, India’s Chief of Defense Staff (CDS), General Bipin Rawat, stated that India was looking to set up a “Rocket Force” of its own. This announcement was in many ways a belated recognition of a stark asymmetry that currently exists in the China-India military balance – the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) has the ability to mount a major conventional missile strike campaign against critical Indian military and civilian targets with New Delhi’s response options being limited in comparison. Such a missile strike campaign could inflict tremendous pain while remaining below the nuclear threshold. Naturally, the long standoff between Indian and Chinese forces along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that began in summer 2020 has catalyzed New Delhi’s intention to appreciably reduce, if not remove, this asymmetry.

A clear recognition by the Chief of Army Staff that first contact in a war will not be the front lines.

As India’s Chief of Army Staff, General Manoj Mukund Naravane, put it while speaking at a Delhi-based think-tank in August 2021 about emerging conflict scenarios:

Even while troops at the forward defended localities (FDLs) are all primed and in a state of high-alert, it is the command and control centers, airfields, depots, and strategic communication nodes in depth that take the first-hit from standoff vectors with precision targeting. Swarms of low-flying autonomous drones breach or overwhelm the air defense cover in the second wave, targeting the artillery guns, missiles bases, and tank concentrations. Rocket and missile attacks from standoff distances join battle to degrade conventional capabilities and soften the targets. Operations will unfold in “reverse linearity,” with the FDLs being the last to be addressed, if at all.

The benefits and limitations of Brahmos

But the Brahmos, though highly accurate and capable of prosecuting even time critical targets when equipped with a MMW seeker, is also made up of a lot of imported content. While in recent years, India has indigenized the INS, airframe, booster, and even the front-end seeker of the baseline model, the control and propulsion systems of this missile continue to be Russian. Moreover, owing to the terms of the Indo-Russian joint venture that builds the Brahmos, these subsystems will continue to be imported for the baseline Brahmos. The imported content of Brahmos in turn serves to make the missile a tad expensive. The missile’s 200 kg warhead also make it ill-suited for attacking large area targets.

Although four Brahmos regiments with a hundred missiles each are currently in the IA’s inventory and an undisclosed number with the IAF, any future IRF would ideally like to have in its ambit a much cheaper ballistic missile of similar range with a much larger warhead. Such a missile called the Pralay, which according to sources boasts a range of 400-500 km and can carry at least a 700 kg warhead, has already been developed by the DRDO, although it is yet to be tested. The Pralay leverages advances in domestic solid rocket propulsion technology, on-board computing, and guidance systems to deliver a large explosive package despite being relatively compact in size. Two Pralays will be carried on a truck-based launcher than can navigate even mountain roads.

The recognition that India needs the ability to have a conventional strike ability in China as deep as 2000 km.

Even the Pralay SRBM, though an attractive proposition, would be barely of strategic range. And while it can provide mass on account of being cheaper than the Brahmos, there is apparently a need for systems that can prosecute targets 1,000-2,000 km away. In order to impose prohibitive costs on the Chinese leadership and push them toward conflict termination, India will have to create the ability to launch precision conventional attacks on targets deep inside China. It is here that the IRF is expected to rely mainly on a pool of LACMs. While a 800-km range Brahmos is currently under development and may be extended further, the mainstay will be the Nirbhay Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) variant, set to enter IAF service in sizeable numbers in the next few years. Interestingly, it is the IAF rather than the IA that is likely to be the first operator of a subsonic GLCM.

GLCMs, however, will not obviate the need for longer-ranged ballistic missiles (until new generation hypersonic systems become available) than the Pralay that can be used for conventional purposes. Such ballistic missiles would be able to reach their targets much faster, deliver a larger warhead and will be more difficult to intercept. After all, an IRF concept of operations will necessarily involve presenting the enemy with a varied missile defense challenge in terms of trajectories, speeds, payloads, and guidance packages. An obvious candidate complementing GLCMs would be the medium-range canisterized road-mobile Agni-Prime, tested recently.

And the hesitancy that was there for deploying such long range conventional strike platforms in that the enemy would mistake them for nuclear launches has been overcome as China which is the primary target of this command in any event has both conventional and nuclear short range and long range missiles.

Naturally, if systems such as the Agni-Prime also end up being allocated a conventional role, issues related to pre-launch ambiguity and entanglement would become sharper, since this system is meant to join India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC), the custodian of the country’s nuclear deterrent. While no country in the world has the technology to definitively distinguish between incoming nuclear and conventional warheads, Pakistan’s ability to differentiate between different kind of ballistic missiles launched at it is unclear as far as Indian planners are concerned. This is a key reason why the Pralay’s testing had been kept on hold till recently, since Indian nuclear planners were still wrestling with the deterrence stability issues systems like the Pralay – and, by extension, an IRF that uses it – might present. However, the PLARF threat to India, which is any case is co-mingled, has eliminated such self-constraining views. Pakistan’s own development of nuclear-armed short-range rockets such as the Nasr alongside operational range MLRS means that India will not exercise asymmetric restraint anymore.

[Vips]

Leaving asides Missiles, what deterrence will this rocket force have in absence of really long range rockets with our forces? Our longest range rocket right now is just 90 Kms and the news report so far have shown future programs at max 120-140 Kms.

Forget China with its very longe range guided rockets, even Pakistan has MLRS with range of 140-150 Kms in service. So how 'effective' will this "rocket force" be?

[John]

Leaving asides Missiles, what deterrence will this rocket force have in absence of really long range rockets with our forces? Our longest range rocket right now is just 90 Kms and the news report so far have shown future programs at max 120-140 Kms.

Forget China with its very longe range guided rockets, even Pakistan has MLRS with range of 140-150 Kms in service. So how 'effective' will this "rocket force" be?

It’s shame Prahaar missile never saw daylight but army instead demanded 200 km I guess incremental improvement is new concept to IA. Now we won’t see Pranash inducted in any meaning #s any time before 2035, where as we could have fielded a few regiments of Prahaar by now.