Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 26 Jul 2011 10:43

Shrinivasan wrote:that would be great if we can pack couple of dozen Prahaars in a covered bogie and station it somewhere close to the border and boom, we can achieve a saturation attack (at the start of hostilities)... Road warriors can ride tango with our Armoured corps!!!

Shrinivasan, you are a prolific contributor, however the above post constitutes Noise. lets not saturate this forum with too many posts, since it makes it difficult to filter content that matters from white noise.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 11:28

AdityaM wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:that would be great if we can pack couple of dozen Prahaars in a covered bogie and station it somewhere close to the border and boom, we can achieve a saturation attack (at the start of hostilities)... Road warriors can ride tango with our Armoured corps!!!
Shrinivasan, you are a prolific contributor, however the above post constitutes Noise. lets not saturate this forum with too many posts, since it makes it difficult to filter content that matters from white noise.

Aditya, If you find a fault in my post, please point it out. Blanket statement like this does not help me or the forum. Tell me what is wrong in packing 2 dozed missiles in a Rail mobile launcher, position it close to the Paki Border and launch a barrage before start of hostilities. This would cover a significant area. Correct me, I'll be very happy to learn.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 11:33

koti wrote:When a BM like Agni or Prithvi is launched, it will use and release the different stages of the rocket after that.
Does this mean that once the last stage booster is used up it will immediately get released or will it still be attached to the payload section?

Prithvi is a single stages missile, so at point of impact IMHO the warhead would impact and would still be attached to the missile. In strategic missiles like Agni, the different stages separate and fall off. the Warhead/RV/MIRV alone enters the atmosphere and strike the target. in warheads which are maneuverable there is a motor (IMHO called HAM) which uses onboard fuel to align/realign the warhead. they also might launch decoy warheads in case of MIRVs.
Arun_S had written in detail about this many moons back, you may check some archives... In moments like these, I miss Arun_S in Bharat Rakshak. He would love questions like this and educate Rakshaks 10 times better than yours truly.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 26 Jul 2011 13:26

Shrinivasan wrote:
AdityaM wrote: Shrinivasan, you are a prolific contributor, however the above post constitutes Noise. lets not saturate this forum with too many posts, since it makes it difficult to filter content that matters from white noise.
Aditya, If you find a fault in my post, please point it out. Blanket statement like this does not help me or the forum. Tell me what is wrong in packing 2 dozed missiles in a Rail mobile launcher, position it close to the Paki Border and launch a barrage before start of hostilities. This would cover a significant area. Correct me, I'll be very happy to learn.

If I was to say:
"Lets place Prahaar close to the border disguised as trees, so that when required, it blooms & booms and brings the pakis doom"

Neither of us are wrong. But i know that my fanboy fantasy above does not bring any value to this board.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 13:51

AdityaM wrote:"Lets place Prahaar close to the border disguised as trees, so that when required, it blooms & booms and brings the pakis doom"
Neither of us are wrong. But i know that my fanboy fantasy above does not bring any value to this board.

Aditya, your counter argument is a fantasy, there is no supporting data point.. i don't want to get into any name calling so I am only going to defend my point.
The article talked about "Rail mobile launcher" correct. This is the first time we are seeing Prahaar mentioned with a Rail mobile launcher, correct. If Six missiles can be carried and launched from a TATRA truck, how many could be fitted in a Rail coach. Just assume a standard dimension rail coach. Say 2 dozen, with all the launching and power infrastructure. I didn't say 100 (eventhough one can pack 5x20 missiles in a tightly packed structure like Barak VLS tubes). Can we move this coach close to Paki Border during peace time, you go and figure out the Rail map in Punjab / J&K. see how close our rail network goes. See how sidings have been laid out. Can we position a launcher here? Yes, Can we fire them? Yes if ordered to.
Can we fire them before commencement of hostilities, Yes. Tougher after hostilities start due to counter bombardment. If you still do not agree with my assertions, counter my argument without talking about trees and blooms. Aditya, don't shoot the messenger ig you cannot shoot the message.
*** Admins: you may delete my whole Post if this is found piskological ***

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 26 Jul 2011 14:05

@Shrinivasan,
your posts are really becoming a headache for me . AdityaM is right. Post after post, too much noise and zero substance.
It appears that you have hijacked the entire BR forum.
Apologies, if this appears rude.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 26 Jul 2011 14:05

^^^ Shrinivasan

Please listen to what Aditya has to say. You are surely a prolific contributor but at times it seems you are posting for the sake of it. BR readers will appreciate you more if you collate your thoughts and put them together after due thinking. This I must point out is NOT a blog. It is not a diary of your thoughts. Please I am not looking to embarass you or something but surely a friendly advice. It wud be good to meet you in the next BR Mumbai meet.

As for putting Prahar on rail launcher, well anything and everything can be done. How about mounting howitzers or Pinaka on rails? Or why not have a disguised train filled with commandus near the border and they can attack even before we declare war ( I am going nowhere trying to point what looks obvious).

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 14:22

Vik,
Mounting Prahaar on Rails mobile launcher was not mu idea. it was mentioned in the article which was posted by some other poster from India Strategic I think, here is the Link http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1092.htm

Designated Prahaar in Hindi, or Strike, this was the first test of the new missile and there would be some more to establish its required parameters before induction with the Indian Army and Air Force units. The missile can be launched from its canisters within two to three minutes without much preparations, and can also be ferried on road and rail mobile launchers.

I quoted this segment and said, an excellent idea and can deliver a barrage...
now tell me where my thoughts were flawed or premature or am posting for posting sake. Did either or you give me a single counter point. BTB, mounting Howitzers on Rails... are you serious, it was done even in WWII.
When I said a "we can achieve a saturation attack (at the start of hostilities)", this is SOP. what is wrong with this...

manum · Post by **manum** » 26 Jul 2011 14:31

there is no rule against excessive relevant posting, but I think you can write and delete few of your post, without posting and consider them as posted...just an advice, you wont regret it...
you can preserve the quality of process as well, if reduce the no. of releases to essential ones...Just an advice...

Manish Jain · Post by **Manish Jain** » 26 Jul 2011 14:54

Calm down boys, I say we attach a coach of Prahaar to Samjhuata express. Will that please everyone?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2011 15:32

abhinavjo wrote:@ Rahul M
So if you say they are then taking that the Indian missiles CEP is around 2 times more accurate than Paki missiles. So we would probably then need a warhead half the size of what wud be in a Paki mijjile? IMHO that would mean that the total Indian weapons grade plutonium is actually half the size of our beloved neighbors?....which in proper context isnt so bad

it isn't that simple.

CEP of x m means 50% will fall within x m of target. now impact zone is determined by blast radius which varies as the 5th root of bomb yield. so what you have to do is find out how large your target area is and what blast radius you need to cover it. with inaccurate missiles and warheads of low yield, as is the case with pakistan, you need many shots to ensure success.

naved wrote:if you're lobbing wee little nukes, it doesn't matter at all if CEP is 2 metres or 20 metres or 200 metres, the target will glow in the dark anyway. however, if you're going conventional, CEP is the ace up your sleeve. Looking at the awesome CEP paki mijjiles have, they'll probably end up hitting their own troops if used in any tactical scenario...

it does matter. it isn;t the same if a missile targeted at mumbai falls in the sea.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 15:45

Rahul M wrote:CEP of x m means 50% will fall within x m of target. now impact zone is determined by blast radius which varies as the 5th root of bomb yield. so what you have to do is find out how large your target area is and what blast radius you need to cover it. with inaccurate missiles and warheads of low yield, as is the case with pakistan, you need many shots to ensure success.

Thanks for explaining, the key point is more shots... please check the graph in the link below which shows how more missiles (of similar explosive power) are needed when CEP increases or vice versa.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/CEP% ... 245326.gif

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 15:52

Missile threat from Pakistan and ACM Naik's response...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 370406.cms
It looks like Pakistan has many missiles which (in theory) can target most cities in India (except Trivandrum, Karnataka). The Paki DDM which reported the news originally mentioned Surface to Air Missile, but the threat from Surface to Surface missiles in real. See the image in the link below.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/images/PakMissile.jpg
Kudos to ACM Naik for giving a fitting response ASAP, hopefully the Dhimmis in MEA don't hose it down to please the visting Pak Foreign Minister.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 26 Jul 2011 16:27

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 370406.cms
Naik was responding to a query on the new Pakistani tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr' which is touted to be a 'game-changer' in future warfare.
He did not agree that the new missile will be a 'game-changer'.

"Tactical or strategic, it is a nuclear weapon. So, obviously our response would be absolutely violent as per our existing policy. I don't think it is a game-changer," he added.

aha, that is very brilliant response

that nullifies the whole effect of Nasr
so Cold Start will continue to haunt TSP

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Jul 2011 01:07

For once common sense prevailed and ACM Naik did exactly what he was meant to.

naved · Post by **naved** » 28 Jul 2011 10:10

@RahulM

At the cost of nitpicking, let me gently disagree with you there. I accept that yield determines blast radius and consequently you have to factor in CEP to determine the size of glowing mass you're planning to lob. but lets look at the bigger picture here and go beyond merely numbers.

whether a missile lobbed at mumbai (may this never happen) has awesome or rotten CEP, the psychological effects on a populations will be the same. Even if a nuke airbursts over sea, the fallout from radioactive water vapour will render the city uninhabitable, and consequent population casualties will still be in their high hundreds of thousands. Then again, there is a question of response, would we not retaliate in force just because the pakis missed their target by a whisker? a nuke is a nuke, its not merely an oversized conventional explosive, and the response to a small nuke or a big nuke targeting either our cities or our frontline troops, sitting on a missile that is deadly accurate or yawningly innacurate will essentially be the same.

hence my argument that CEP and yield numbers are just that, numbers. nuke warfare is just so boolean, either you've used it or you havent, there isnt anything in between...

end of nitpick

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jul 2011 10:30

Manish Jain wrote:Calm down boys, I say we attach a coach of Prahaar to Samjhuata express. Will that please everyone?

Who are you? Col Prohat? Didn't you hear Hyena Rabbani say that your views are outdated? You don't get to date the canine.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Jul 2011 10:41

there is an implicit assumption that any nuclear explosion would necessarily cause suffering on a gigantic scale irrespective of where this explosion happens wrt the target or its yield. this leads to a fear induced paralysis among Indians who assume that any use of nukes would mean destruction of the entire nation and hence the only choice is to appease and bribe any potential adversary.
this assumption is not founded on facts, if you nitpick a bit more you will see that lethality of a nuclear explosion is dependent on a number of factors including accuracy of targeting. so in this respect it is not quite boolean.

you are of course correct about the response part, even an attempt at nuking us counts as first strike and would invite massive retaliation.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 28 Jul 2011 11:19

^^^^ To understand what Rahul is saying, read this

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/n ... e_101.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/n ... e_102.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/n ... e_103.html

This was posted on BR many moons ago. A brilliant analysis (to me) on effects of nuclear blast. A must read IMHO

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jul 2011 18:37

Minuteman III missile launch fails minutes after launch

A missile test at Vandenberg Air Force Base this morning ends in failure. Air Force officials say they had to destroy the unarmed Minuteman 3 missile just minutes after launch because of safety concerns.

The missile blasted off from the base on time at 3:01 a.m. It was supposed to travel about 4200 miles southwest to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, but did not reach its target.

There have been problems with both Minuteman 3 missile tests so far this year. Just five weeks ago, the launch had a communications glitch. That missile eventually reached its target, but that was not the case Wednesday morning.

Air Force officials say most of the mission went as planned, but just five minutes into the flight, something went wrong.

"We detected an anomaly and we initiated termination orders," said Lt. Col. Ron Watrous with Air Force Global Strike at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The next Minuteman 3 launch is scheduled for September.

These things are common to even technically advanced nation. Next time, if something like this happens at desi front, hope our journos act with maturity.

In case you're curious, the name "Minuteman" comes from the Revolutionary War's Minutemen. It also refers to its quick reaction time. The missile can be launched in about a minute.

he he he, it can be launched within a minute, so the name minuteman.

Sometimes such names have peculiar origin. They say that an American general in charge of the R&D project of a tactical missile was asked: "How should we name this missile?" and exclaimed: "Honest John!" (which was an exclamation expressing ignorance). And the missile was named 'Honest John'.

On those similar lines, somebody must have asked the General in charge. He must have repiled, "Give me a minute man!".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jul 2011 19:12

americans seem to have made the jump directly from this primitive looking honest john system to the modular MLRS system without a intermediate product like the Katyusha rocket? soviets had katyushas working in WW2 already...my commando comic memories do not show a equivalent american or british rocket system. mostly the americans were shown using 8" howitzers and the british either the 25 pounder or dragging pack howitzers through the burmese jungle.

http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m39 ... 03_700.jpg

saip · Post by **saip** » 28 Jul 2011 19:22

AFAIK every country has missile failures, except one country where they have 100% success rate. But then they use Jinn technology.

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 29 Jul 2011 03:47

They have reserved all their failures for the war time

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 29 Jul 2011 08:12

Singha wrote:americans seem to have made the jump directly from this primitive looking honest john system to the modular MLRS system without a intermediate product like the Katyusha rocket? soviets had katyushas working in WW2 already...my commando comic memories do not show a equivalent american or british rocket system. mostly the americans were shown using 8" howitzers and the british either the 25 pounder or dragging pack howitzers through the burmese jungle.

http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m39 ... 03_700.jpg

Actually Singha Honest John was a tactical nuclear weapon - no connection to tactical artillery systems such as MLRS. And in WWII the US & UK forces did use rockets - as beach suppression weapons mounted on LCTs:

LCT(R)

It's true that they had no land-based rocket systems until MLRS, though the Germans had the Nebelwerfer in WWII and then the LARS system...

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 30 Jul 2011 18:55

India soon to be ready for any missile attack
IBNLive

Indian scientists say that a ground based ballistic missile defence system they are working on will take care of any missile challenge, whether from the Nasr or longer range missiles Pakistan has in its inventory.

Scientist VK Saraswat, "We can intercept these missiles at exo-atmospheric range, that is beyond 40 to 50 km in altitude and endo-atmospheric bracket, that is between 15 and 30 km. This gives us the capability to take care of missiles that are ballistic in nature which could be nuclear powered or non-nuclear powered."

But right now this is work in progress with more tests of the missile interceptor planned for this year. The development of the first phase will be complete only in 2013 and after that, the integration of ground systems into a seamless network will begin.

"Today all the building blocks of the BMD are in position. We have radars, command and control systems, mobile launchers and command and control decision making software. So as far as Phase One activities go, they are by and large complete," said Saraswat.

It's only in 2016 that work on the more ambitious second phase of the missile defence network will be complete and that is when the contours of India's space based missile defence network will be revealed.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2011 20:20

>>that is when the contours of India's space based missile defence network will be revealed.

Those who are at the habit of disparaging the developments as DRDO pulled rabbit out of its hat, are warned before hand that there is space based dimension to Indian missile defence.

And those who are saying DRDO BMD programme is mere TD and the GoI has not given any mandate is again looking for surprise.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2011 20:46

Singha wrote:americans seem to have made the jump directly from this primitive looking honest john system to the modular MLRS system without a intermediate product like the Katyusha rocket? soviets had katyushas working in WW2 already...my commando comic memories do not show a equivalent american or british rocket system. mostly the americans were shown using 8" howitzers and the british either the 25 pounder or dragging pack howitzers through the burmese jungle.

http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m39 ... 03_700.jpg

Soviet equivalent of Honest John missile is FROG. Americans do had their own MLRS system during WWII. But they are not powerful as Katyusha rockets fielded by Soviets in WWII. Another reason why American MLRS is not that famous is that their Generals at that time never believed in Rockets as primary weapon. American Army interest grew in rockets/missiles only after they received intelligence about the German achievements in the rocketry. Infact initially their scientist couldn't believe the achievements made by the Germans as they thought it was not possible. But Soviets had got their head start much before British and Americans and they new about German plans.

Third reason is Americans had their inferior complex. So they called, which could termed as Rockets by today std as missiles and missiles as Guided missiles. While Russian termed FROG as unguided rocket, Honest John was termed as Missile. Infact their first long range rocket is named as Missile.

LCR is British.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 Jul 2011 20:48

Its maximum payload of 200 kg does not allow the Prahaar to carry a nuclear weapon (which are seldom under 500 kg). But while nuclear capable ballistic missiles are useful only in the nightmarish eventuality of nuclear war, the Prahaar can be useful at every stage of a Cold

According to the DRDO, the Prahaar is comparable to the US Army's Advanced Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which was extensively used during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Prahaar is launched from a Road Mobile System developed by Larsen & Toubro, which can carry six missiles.

All six can be fired in a salvo, each of them against a different target.

According to the DRDO, the Prahaar was developed in a period of just two years.

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 31 Jul 2011 08:32

DRDO seems to be more versatile now, i believe it has modified the killer missile of Prithvi and has developed the Prahaar.

similarly, shaurya has been developed on lines of K-15. It is through this way a variety of missiles can be developed within less time frame. The development of A-5 from A-3 was also concieved from this idea.

But, I think the ever pending ICBM of Surya or A-6 will be a totally differnt design may be in line with the secret K-4 Missile which is developed for the Nuc Subs...with a strike range of about 5,000 Kms.

Cheers.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 31 Jul 2011 09:13

But Indian scientists say that a ground based ballistic missile defence system they are working on will take care of any missile challenge, whether from the Nasr or longer range missiles Pakistan has in its inventory.

Is this new missile defence system road mobile then ? Shouldn't it be different from PAD and AAD ?

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 31 Jul 2011 09:20

About "Nasr" i have my own doubts....with a limited range of 60 Kms, max may be 100Km the reaction time will be so less it will be far difficult to destroy it using BMD. Perhaps the only chnace stands is by using an Air defence System.

Cheers.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 31 Jul 2011 09:38

Isn't it possible to use Akash ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2011 09:43

why exactly are people so worried by Nasr. if it delivers a nuclear payload, the war will go fully nuclear, in which case a nasr will be least of our worries. in conventional terms its no different from a large mlrs rocket. we do not have the means to intercept all such rockets fired in our direction - nobody has, unless someone comes with a cheap laser that replaces a tank cannon and can zap these things. needs a vast improvement in power source probably.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 31 Jul 2011 09:54

pkudva wrote:About "Nasr" i have my own doubts....with a limited range of 60 Kms, max may be 100Km the reaction time will be so less it will be far difficult to destroy it using BMD. Perhaps the only chnace stands is by using an Air defence System.

Cheers.

I think to address these kinds of threat we need air defense system like Iron Dome & David's Sling

And there were reports that India was looking to buy these air defense systems from Israel

India in talks to buy Iron Dome, David's Sling - 18/07/2010

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 31 Jul 2011 10:01

Singha wrote:why exactly are people so worried by Nasr. if it delivers a nuclear payload, the war will go fully nuclear, in which case a nasr will be least of our worries. in conventional terms its no different from a large mlrs rocket. we do not have the means to intercept all such rockets fired in our direction - nobody has, unless someone comes with a cheap laser that replaces a tank cannon and can zap these things. needs a vast improvement in power source probably.

A salvo of 4-6 conventionally armed Nasr is a credible threat against an advancing column.
Let's limit the discussion to workable solutions onlee. Lasers are not coming in to picture for a long long time.

Iron Dome & David's Sling are both meant for defense against Hezbollah mortars and primitive rockets. I don't know how effective can they be against a SRBM.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 31 Jul 2011 10:10

^^^ How about detecting them early with ucavs and the airforce blowing them up before our column advances in range?I believe the satellites to be helpful too. C4ISTAR is the key. We surely would be striking their threats down with our surface to surface missiles and IAF/IN before the army advance.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 31 Jul 2011 10:11

jamwal wrote: A salvo of 4-6 conventionally armed Nasr is a credible threat against an advancing column.
Let's limit the discussion to workable solutions onlee. Lasers are not coming in to picture for a long long time.

Iron Dome & David's Sling are both meant for defense against Hezbollah mortars and primitive rockets. I don't know how effective can they be against a SRBM.

From what I understand Nasr is a Single-stage rocket with a 60 Km range ballistic trajectory so it won’t be difficult for Iron Dome & David's Sling to intercept it

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2011 11:07

the pakis allegedly have a few units of the 100km range WS-x type MLRS . so its similar to nasr.

most countries can make a 100km rocket, the key to effectiveness seems to be CEP and smart bomblets which can work against a moving column of vehicles which are not in a straight line in open country , in all weather conditions like night, rain, dust, snow etc.

the only smart bomblets I know of us having are the CBU-105 we ordered from the US. am not aware of any for smerch, pinaka or grad though all can likely delivery unguided cluster munitions over a wide area to attack thin skinned vehicles, and damage the optics , engine deck and RF eqpt of armour vehicles - which might actually mission kill them, without destroying them.

one middle ground could be pack less cluster bombs into the rocket but bigger ones and use more rockets to cover the same attack area.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 31 Jul 2011 11:57

unless this nasr thing has smart munition can it really be effective against advancing tank columns . We are assuming that it is conventionally armed. Besides are not their real good chances of friendly fire by such systems? I mean their tank columns would be close by .5 % cep accuracy may be insufficient . Anyway there will be a lot of casualty initially without doubt. I would surely buy Iron sling . Artillery raakit is even feared by unkil.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2011 12:03

May be they can drop anti-tank mines via Nasr , even if they cant have smart munitions.

Presence of anti-tank mine will slow the rolling tank forces and logistics platform