Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Oct 2020 23:31

Sumeet wrote:Brar If you think AWACS is an outdated concept why is there so much focus (in IAF) to build new ones or buy it from foreign sources for countries like India.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2464767#p2464767

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2020 02:44

Vips wrote:Question to the gurus. For the missiles that do not use rails and are ejected from the jets - How do they fall horizontally and symmetrically. Why don't they by the gravitational force tilt on the front or tail while falling?

No object will tilt because of gravitational force. The acceleration due to gravity is constant on all parts of the body. It is the airflow which can create moments. So why doesn't the airflow make them tumble? That is because of there static stability. Rest you can Google.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 10 Oct 2020 03:49

nam wrote:Once we test out the A2A version of Rudram-1, there is no escape for the Pak propeller AWACS.

It is all nice and TFTA to show around number of propeller AWACS in peace time.

In a war, when your adversary is going to have a 200 - 250KM long ARM, streaming at you at Mach 4, datalinked, you really hope the propeller's are rotating fast.. really fast.. to allow you to land quickly.

Are you sure about the speed of Mach 4? All the news reports coming in so far are mentioning top speed of Rudram at Mach 2 and max range of 250 Kms.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2020 08:30

Kakarat wrote:
Rsatchi wrote: Sirji
Just watched a video : the name is RUDRA M has two variants M2 and M3 and not Rudram!!!
And they have been under development since 2016/2017
??Different from NGARM which has been under development since 2012
Watch this video:
https://youtu.be/FNGk9XiCMUQ
Sirji,
That tweet is by MOD Spokesperson not me
NGARM is RudraM-1 and there are another two M2 & M3 on which not much detail is available
The video is by a enthusiast with details from opensource and is not an official one

Early name was Rudra M. I think press info guys made it Rudram.
Let's see.

Nilanjan · Post by **Nilanjan** » 10 Oct 2020 08:55

nam wrote:Once we test out the A2A version of Rudram-1, there is no escape for the Pak propeller AWACS.

It is all nice and TFTA to show around number of propeller AWACS in peace time.

In a war, when your adversary is going to have a 200 - 250KM long ARM, streaming at you at Mach 4, datalinked, you really hope the propeller's are rotating fast.. really fast.. to allow you to land quickly.

A2a arm works only in theory, not in practicality..soviets worked on this concept..but,now they have dropped it..their latest awacs killers are general ku band rf seeker a2a missile...

Nilanjan · Post by **Nilanjan** » 10 Oct 2020 09:05

Rsatchi wrote:
Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... 7809835008

Sirji
Just watched a video : the name is RUDRA M has two variants M2 and M3 and not Rudram!!!
And they have been under development since 2016/2017
??Different from NGARM which has been under development since 2012
Watch this video:
https://youtu.be/FNGk9XiCMUQ

This type of misinformed video is in abundance in youtibe..intial works for rudram1(ngarm) started in 2012 but, officialy santioned only in 2014..rudram2 in 2016 and 3 in 2017....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Oct 2020 10:06

The BMos AAM should have a sufficient range to take out Paki AWACS, but Rudram in its SEAD role will allow us to strike at Paki air and radar defences both from the air plus land- based tactical missiles too. Superb achievement , hats off to those responsible.What's next?

PS: Q.Why can't Rudram with its 200+ km range also have an AAM
variant,exceeding that of Meteor,Astra,etc.,or iis its lower speed insufficient?

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 10 Oct 2020 10:21

Philip wrote:
PS: Q.Why can't Rudram with its 200+ km range also have an AAM
variant,exceeding that of Meteor,Astra,etc.,or iis its lower speed insufficient?

Range is not useful without speed and manoeuvrability. How manoeuvrable is ngarm ?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 10 Oct 2020 10:47

Raghunathgb wrote:
Range is not useful without speed and manoeuvrability. How manoeuvrable is ngarm ?

The dual pulse motor should be a dead giveaway for the role it is intended for. Besides AWACS are just sluggish commercial aircrafts bogged down with additional equipment. Not much energy required by the missile in endgame to knock it down.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 10 Oct 2020 11:25

Saurav Jha's DDR claimed in one of their earlier NGARM schematic that the missile has a MMW seeker, so that it can seek & destroy the target even if the target stops emitting.

The latest reports post-test make no mention of an MMW seeker (in addition to the passive homing seeker).

Does anyone have additional info about this?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 10 Oct 2020 11:28

You will find the mention of MMW seeker in earlier reports from initial phases of project.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 10 Oct 2020 12:28

Thakur_B wrote:
Raghunathgb wrote:
Range is not useful without speed and manoeuvrability. How manoeuvrable is ngarm ?
The dual pulse motor should be a dead giveaway for the role it is intended for. Besides AWACS are just sluggish commercial aircrafts bogged down with additional equipment. Not much energy required by the missile in endgame to knock it down.

AWACS is a radar platform which is moving; may require some modification but in principle should be possible but with a lower range since potential->kinetic energy conversion does not happen and the target may move.

la.khan · Post by **la.khan** » 10 Oct 2020 13:48

Good to hear indigenous hardware getting the spotlight

I am hearing of SMART & RudraM1 for the first time. These were test fired in the last 3-4 days. Both seems to have met their objectives.

So, what's next? Summer trails, winter trials, rainy/monsoon trials, day and/or night trials, trials in deserts (summer & winter, day & night), trials in the mountains, trials on beaches

How close are these puppies to production? It would be nice to have 1000 RudraM1s, 1000 Astras, 100-150 SMARTs in our inventory. Hope the production of these missiles are handed over to pvt sector so that we can get away from OFB/DPSU monopoly.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Oct 2020 13:51

Prem Kumar wrote:
JTull wrote:
In this video, there is a very visible wobble when it free falls & before the booster ignites. Is this normal?

I think the air-launched Brahmos separation was quite clean, if memory serves me right

If i have to offer my opinion, the separation is good and it is normal.
Actually, this should be answered by defence experts, pls check with them.

Every missile show its characteristics.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 10 Oct 2020 13:59

This is using a Trapeze Launcher
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/lau-141.htm

Looks like there was a small time gap between the disengagement of the front and the back connection point.

It may have even be intentional to orient the head of the missile downwards.

But the missile did self-stabilize which is good.

Was expecting it to ignite sooner; looks like it was free-falling for few seconds.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Oct 2020 13:59

Vips wrote:
nam wrote:Once we test out the A2A version of Rudram-1, there is no escape for the Pak propeller AWACS.

It is all nice and TFTA to show around number of propeller AWACS in peace time.

In a war, when your adversary is going to have a 200 - 250KM long ARM, streaming at you at Mach 4, datalinked, you really hope the propeller's are rotating fast.. really fast.. to allow you to land quickly.
Are you sure about the speed of Mach 4? All the news reports coming in so far are mentioning top speed of Rudram at Mach 2 and max range of 250 Kms.

What is mentioned so far is the launch speed of the missile which is between M2.0 to M0.5.
These are the speed of launch aircraft, under which the missile can be launched. You know max speed of Su-30 is ~M2.0.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Oct 2020 14:20

VikramS wrote:This is using a Trapeze Launcher
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/lau-141.htm

Looks like there was a small time gap between the disengagement of the front and the back connection point.

It may have even be intentional to orient the head of the missile downwards.

But the missile did self-stabilize which is good.

Was expecting it to ignite sooner; looks like it was free-falling for few seconds.

Yes they allow the missile to fall further. Rather than igniting sooner as seen in other missile launches, they are providing further distance between aircraft before ignition. More cautious perhaps?
Seeing the way the nose dips & stabilizes, looks like front section, middile are properly balanced with rear. It seems good.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2020 18:44

la.khan wrote:Good to hear indigenous hardware getting the spotlight I am hearing of SMART & RudraM1 for the first time. These were test fired in the last 3-4 days. Both seems to have met their objectives.

So, what's next? Summer trails, winter trials, rainy/monsoon trials, day and/or night trials . .

Can't say much about SMART, but Rudram has been under testing for quite sometime now. Originally dubbed NGARM (Next Generation ARM), it was announced in c. 2013. I have a picture of its Passive Homing Head displayed in 2018 DefExpo. In February 2016, DRDO announced that captive flight trials of ARM would take place in April-May 2016 and the maiden flight test by year-end. DRDO also said in May 2016 that the post flight data analysis had shown that all the structural design parameters were within the predicted bounds and based on the results, NGARM was cleared for carriage conditions at station 8 on Su-30MKI. The Drop Flight trials (DFT) conducted during December 2016, from Air Force Station Kalaikunda proved that NGARM could be safely released from Station 8 of an IAF Su-30 MKI. This DFT saw NGARM being released from a Su-30 MKI flying at an altitude of 6.5 km and a speed of 0.8 Mach. By April 2018), NGARM had also qualified for carriage and subsequent separation release with Station numbers 5,6 and 7 on two Su-30 MKI being used for this purpose. On January 18, 2019, DRDO successfully conducted a live fire test from a Su-30 MKI at ITR, Balasore.

Hopefully, the October 9 test was a successful user trial.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Oct 2020 19:00

or post induction trial

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Oct 2020 19:04

Thakur_B wrote:
Raghunathgb wrote:
Range is not useful without speed and manoeuvrability. How manoeuvrable is ngarm ?
The dual pulse motor should be a dead giveaway for the role it is intended for.

And what would that be and how does adapting a particular propulsion solution automatically give away something besides just that the designers were looking to optimize range, TTT, and endgame performance within a size and carriage requirements (which is basic propulsion trade space 101 stuff)?

Thakur_B wrote:You will find the mention of MMW seeker in earlier reports from initial phases of project.

This is what the US AARGM does (ARH+Active MMW+GPS/INS+ NLOS SATCOM (uni) and 2-way LOS DL). But again, as I mentioned in my prior post that doesn't automatically equate to credible anti-air capability because of the intercept trajectories required and because of geting that seeker type (MMW) and that concept of employment to align and be fully demonstrated in that dynamic environment against that threat and with the CMs employed in that scenario. It is a lot more work to design and develop for that intended role and of course it warrants a complete and very detailed demonstration and validation program/effort. It is not a "residual" or an artifact of designing a DEAD weapon. It is something you have to require at inception which has its impact on the design and the weapon cost.

Long range Air air missiles have existed for decades. New generation ones are also showing up now and they all are optimized for this role. But a long range aerial intercept (even against an AEW target set) involves a different requirement than a long range anti-radiation missile DEAD capability. Merging these requirements has cost and design implications. This is important when you want to hit cost targets even at LRIP. For example, a typical higher end multi-mode ARM will have a UFC of aorund $1-1.3 Million. That's a rather tight cost space to also factor in 200 km AEW intercept requirements after the fact. Short of leveraging 3D printing and some whizzbang semiconductor technology that is previously unknown it is tough to imagine how you can continue to pile on requirements without fielding a significantly more expensive weapon. Of course any such requirement would show up in the design and we'd be able to see how it is optimized for both envelopes. A Mach 6 weapon with a hybrid warhead that can loft very high is a good place to look at. Then you have to see how it modulates either via trajectory or by throttling its motors in order to efficiently scan for a target using its active seeker, (because the scan window that GPS/INS provides for a static target would be very different from the same provided by a third party in a dynamic aerial environment and we know MMW seekers will take longer from lower frequency seekers to scan a given space). These problems, though not insurmountable aren't trivial either. So while it may be possible to hit an emitting aerial source flying mid altitude mid mach with a non-optimized design, it is a completely different thing to claim that you can do it at 200-250 km at Mach 4 as some here have erroneously done.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 10 Oct 2020 19:26

To add to it, let's not forget about being able to produce it in large numbers.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 10 Oct 2020 19:46

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/13 ... 9859031041

#Nirbhay / ITCM launch powered by STFE likely on Oct 12.
@akananth

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/13 ... 6007919617

STFE was earlier known as Manik. Now, Manik name has been dropped. Likewise, #Nirbhay had taken ITCM avatar. Not sure of it's latest name. #Nirbhay sounds much better.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2020 20:17

^ Excellent news.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2020 20:18

fanne wrote:or post induction trial

Yeah, even better, and hope so.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 10 Oct 2020 20:58

Per a AV report Notam issued for Oct 16 to Oct 17. Pralay likely to be tested.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Oct 2020 21:40

Vips wrote:Per a AV report Notam issued for Oct 16 to Oct 17. Pralay likely to be tested.

Not sure the need for Pralay when there is Shaurya, much rather focus the effort on Prahar which will serve our need for a cheap tactical ballistic missile.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 11 Oct 2020 09:14

More pictures of NGARM missile from twitter account of @palaksharmanews

https://twitter.com/Palaksharmanews/sta ... 1957387266

Unseen images of today's 'Rudram' Anti-Radiation Missile test by @DRDO_India @nawegate @DefenceMinIndia @IndiaAheadNews

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 11 Oct 2020 14:34

John wrote: Not sure the need for Pralay when there is Shaurya, much rather focus the effort on Prahar which will serve our need for a cheap tactical ballistic missile.

Prahaar & Pralay give extended artillery reach beyond 155mm and Pinaka to the IA.

The Shaurya, in our infinite wisdom, is under SFC (even the conventional one)!!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Oct 2020 16:25

Prem Kumar wrote:The Shaurya, in our infinite wisdom, is under SFC (even the conventional one)!!

Which means that there is no conventional role for Shaurya, at least for now !

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Oct 2020 17:24

What could this be for? Astra?
https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/13 ... 1742588928

#Areawarning #India issues a notification for an #IndianAirForce exercise near #Balasore in the #BayOfBengal area

Exercise Window | 19 Oct - 03 November 2020

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 11 Oct 2020 19:42

What remains now to test - the ATGMS?
with the year end approaching the customary launching of the long range missiles - A3, A4 and A5 is also due. I hope this year they bunch the K3 and K4 too

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 11 Oct 2020 19:47

Kakarat wrote:What could this be for? Astra?
https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/13 ... 1742588928

Exercise Window | 19 Oct - 03 November 2020

With such a long window whatever is being tested will be tested more then once.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 12 Oct 2020 04:34

Of course, in keeping with India's strategic culture of needless obfuscation, the most interesting missile development is not analysed in the media.

The SMART torpedo deployment presupposes detection and ranging abilities. It reveals perhaps that Indian systems are robust, whatever they are; SOSUS, magnetic anomaly detection, ?space based laser sea-level changes from submerged submarines.

The Akula was reputed to be able to detect the wake of US subs from elemental, or molecular, micro-debris shed whilst in passage.

(Perhaps the Indians can listen for a dirge on their hydrophones to detect a wake

)

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 12 Oct 2020 07:54

abhik wrote:
Raghunathgb wrote:
That is a pitiful number if true, one gets the impression that we might run our of even iron bombs in case of a full scale conflict (Ex Gaganshakti had 5000 fighter sorties in first 3 days).

Hope the SAAW numbers are also much larger, 500 is enough for only ~25-30 MKI fighter loads. For an airforce of our size we should be stocking something like 10K smart munitions a year.

10K smart munitions per year is Massa level numbers.

SAAW, Garuda, Garuthma, Gautam and Gaurav combined productions will barely exceed 2-3k units per annum. This will keep us stocked with around 10K smart bombs during peacetime, which would be sufficient for a high intensity 2 week war.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 12 Oct 2020 11:41

sanjaykumar wrote:Of course, in keeping with India's strategic culture of needless obfuscation, the most interesting missile development is not analysed in the media.

The SMART torpedo deployment presupposes detection and ranging abilities. It reveals perhaps that Indian systems are robust, whatever they are; SOSUS, magnetic anomaly detection, ?space based laser sea-level changes from submerged submarines.

The Akula was reputed to be able to detect the wake of US subs from elemental, or molecular, micro-debris shed whilst in passage.

(Perhaps the Indians can listen for a dirge on their hydrophones to detect a wake )

Even if the ability is not available currently, it shows the intent & determination to acquire the capability.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 12 Oct 2020 11:41

Do a quick calculation. 2 quadpacks on a single fighter = 8 SAAWs in a single sortie (assuming thats all a Jag or an MKI is going to carry along with other AAMs). How many fighters and how many sorties a day will you see in the first 2 weeks of a conflict if the Chinese get cute. That should be a good starting point for all these munitions. LRGB, (PG-) HSLDs, SAAWs all of them will see use.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 12 Oct 2020 13:35

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1315547516708876289

JUST IN: Nirbhay cruise missile test-firing aborted 8 minutes after launch. Planned use of killswitch after a reported glitch. Details awaited.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 12 Oct 2020 14:15

Nirbhay definitely needs Dilbu jinx

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 12 Oct 2020 14:49

https://twitter.com/TheHemantRout/statu ... 3743889409

#BigBreaking: New version of #Nirbhay missile develops snag seconds after taking off, mission aborted mid air. "The engine used in the missile had not cleared ground tests," sources inform @NewIndianXpress
. It was India's 1st indigenous technology cruise missile. @XpressOdisha

nam · Post by **nam** » 12 Oct 2020 14:53

I will wait for proper details to come up. It is possible the engine failed, which is perfectly normal for a first time flight.

However this "not cleared ground test" is someone pushing away the blame. ADE was planning to test out Nirbhay with Manik this year. So it was a planned test, not a random try after the Chinese came.

Not a big deal. We will fix the engine and try again.