Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Nov 2011 11:05

Please Post away

Last Page of previous threat link

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2011 11:10

Austin wrote:Please Post away

Last Page of previous threat link

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Nov 2011 11:18

mody wrote: BVR missiles and SAM's use very similar technology. So it is quite astonishing when I hear claims that SAM's are very effective, while BVR missiles are not. If a radar guided Akash can have a hit probability of more then 90%, when two missiles are fired simultaneously, I would assume even the radar guided R27 when ripple fired should have a hit probability of atleast 80%+.
Here I am not concerned about the fact that Radar guided R-27 puts the firing aircraft at a disadvantage as it has to have its radar locked on the target for the duration of the missile flight. I am only trying to stress on the similarity of technology in terms of seeker, range, speed etc. of SAM's and BVR missiles.

What you are saying is correct that BVR missiles and SAM both use the same technology. However, there is a fine print, which is the size of the missile. Lets take the two examples you have provided. Akash : 35 cm diameter & 720 kg. R-27 : 23 cm diameter & 235 kg. These numbers are representative of the class of missiles that they are from. So as you can see the AAM has a significantly smaller space for seeker & much lesser fuel compared to a SAM. Also the rocket motor of an AAM is also much smaller hence less powerful compared to the SAM. In our case the R-27 nose is 53% the size (area wise) of Akash, thus the seeker would be that much constrained for size. Also a SAM is backed by a much larger Land based radar, compared to a AAM backed by a having a smaller radar. All these factors means that individually a SAM would always have much better seeker, more powerful radar backing and more fuel for better kinematics, thus would have much much better kill probability compared to a AAM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2011 11:20

current threat would definitely need to be prevented using our ABM systems. Missile defense goes hand in glove with second strike ballistics. We need to arrive with A4 and A5s, but not without the ABM systems to defeat the first strike and minimize loss, preferably intercepted outside our boundaries.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Nov 2011 11:22

Anther point is that for missiles like the R 27, the plane will have to keep the radar beam on the Target and continue to move in the direction of the Adversary, if the adversary fires a missile and you need to turn and burn, the radar lock is broken down.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Nov 2011 11:34

Aditya_V wrote:Anther point is that for missiles like the R 27, the plane will have to keep the radar beam on the Target and continue to move in the direction of the Adversary, if the adversary fires a missile and you need to turn and burn, the radar lock is broken down.

Actually it much easier for manouvering fighter to evade a radar lock of BVR missile due to small aperture of BVR missile ,jamming immunity, power etc then say a big radar like BARS that can scan a much wider area even at long ranges and better jamming immunity.

More ever the radar of a BVR goes active only in the final 10-15 km of its self homing flight.

That is what BK was elluding to , most modern fighter can out manouver a BVR missile if they are aware in advance of being under attack,but the key is to be aware.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Nov 2011 11:43

Would it be better to move onto entirely passive system even for Long range AAM. Maybe a IIR based solution for engaging at 80-120km. Launch it, provide mid course updates, and then the missile uses LOAL technique to lock on to the target. Since it is IIR based targets RWR/MAWS etc would not be triggered at all.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 11:48

that kind of IIR would be massive in size and cost for a fighter...I think the cancelled YAL-1 laser ABM system on 747 had such a platinum std IR sensor on the roof to spot missiles against the space bkground.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Nov 2011 12:05

bmallick wrote:it is IIR based targets RWR/MAWS etc would not be triggered at all.

MAWS based on RF or IR seekers are designed to detect IIR or RF based missile.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2011 12:07

situational awareness could be enhanced by heavy fighters like mki, buddy a/cs, awacs, satellites, and other ground based long range installations... all these can passively feed the BVR till it homes.

with low emission astra, MAWS dependent crafts are in double trouble.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 12:13

could be in 30 yrs. at present i dont think even a E3 awacs is capable of providing mid course updates to a bunch of in-flight amraams outbound from radar silent shooters.

the vision could be 'sentient AI units' (racks of them) inside a E3 function to control stealth UCAVs which passively unleash AAMs and the E3's huge processing power and range provides the mid course guidance...

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Nov 2011 12:25

Singha wrote:that kind of IIR would be massive in size and cost for a fighter...I think the cancelled YAL-1 laser ABM system on 747 had such a platinum std IR sensor on the roof to spot missiles against the space bkground.

Singha sir I think you miss understood what I meant. What I mean here is that the missile is IIR based and has a range of 80-120 km. Say MKI uses its radar to locate a target, launch the AAM, provide mid course guidance to the AAM. Once the AAM closes to 10-15 km, instead of going active using a radar like in present missiles, it uses passive IIR based sensor for locking and engaging.

Thus a massive IR is not needed on the mother aircraft. Also modern IIR seekers like Pirate is much smaller and has good range of 100 km in good conditions.

manu_vashist · Post by **manu_vashist** » 18 Nov 2011 14:55

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/11/y ... ni-iv.html

The mood in the Missile Complex in Hyderabad too is ecstatic with a strong sense of 'yes-we-can-belief' settling in among various teams that have been working on Agni-IV.
Speaking to Express from Hyderabad over phone, G. Satheesh Reddy, Associate Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), said that DRDO's patience have finally paid off. “After last year's failed campaign, we got on to the basics and dissected every system that went onboard. Today, with the success of Agni-IV we have witnessed the quantum jump in the state-of-the-art technologies in missile-making. We are now steadily moving towards our inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) dream and all efforts will now go into making of Agni-V,” says Sateesh, a young DRDO brain, who got recently elevated to the 'Outstanding Scientist' status.

I think it is the first time on the record we are talking about ICBM

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2011 15:42

^ I'm adding what is left out.

Bangalore: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is on Cloud 9 following the success of the long-range, surface-to-surface missile Agni-IV on November 16. Often battered and bruised by the users for not delivering what has been promised, the DRDO is hogging all the limelight – thanks to the big-bang strike by Agni-IV.
Known for his inimitable straight-forward comments, DRDO chief Dr V K Saraswat dedicated the success of the launch to the young DRDO. “I dedicate this success to all the youngsters who have contributed with a large heart. I am not playing to the gallery as I have already communicated this internally. The mentoring we started a couple of years back is paying rich dividends. Give it to them (youngsters) as they deserve all the laurels,” Saraswat told The New Indian Express.
Making mincemeat of technology control regimes, Saraswat said that Agni-IV virtually made these powers futile at one go. “Nobody can stop us and nobody can dictate terms to us. Nobody can get us. It is not DRDO we are talking about, but India. We have shown the world how indigenous new-age technologies can be transferred efficiently on to a top-class product,” he said.
The DRDO chief went on to say that the missile technology nuances mastered by his team has put India on par with the best in the world. “We will soon tell another story when Agni-V comes out. It's a constant process and we are all geared up. We have got the momentum and we will get it going,” Saraswat said.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Nov 2011 15:48

MIRV

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 16:01

containerized launch. a first for our bigger missiles. imagine the kind of gas generator need to accelerate a 50t missile around 40feet up in the blink of an eye before the 1st stage motor fires.

some good footage of a Rus rail mobile launch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4eGFYN ... re=related

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2011 16:23

From Anantha Krishnan's blog:

It was Satheesh's team that developed ring-laser gyro-based inertial navigation system (RINS) and micro-navigation system (MINGS) for Agni-IV. “We are thrilled by the telemetry results of the missile and we couldn't have asked for a better launch,” he said.

DRDO sources who were part of the Agni-IV campaign said that the missile could go up to a maximum of 3,700 km and during the maiden launch it touched between 3,200-3,400 km, before hitting with target.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Nov 2011 16:57

Kanson wrote:From Anantha Krishnan's blog:

It was Satheesh's team that developed ring-laser gyro-based inertial navigation system (RINS) and micro-navigation system (MINGS) for Agni-IV. “We are thrilled by the telemetry results of the missile and we couldn't have asked for a better launch,” he said.

DRDO sources who were part of the Agni-IV campaign said that the missile could go up to a maximum of 3,700 km and during the maiden launch it touched between 3,200-3,400 km, before hitting with target.

What is 3200KM-3400Km, the Target is fixed it is either 3200KM or 3250Km or 3400KM, unless MIRV and 2 warheads one 3200KM and anther 3400KM.

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2011 17:06

^Or they were trying to be vague about the exact details.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 18 Nov 2011 19:41

Singha wrote: some good footage of a Rus rail mobile launch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4eGFYN ... re=related

The straight blue smokeless flame of the silo based missiles is quite a sight!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2011 19:58

Aditya_V wrote:
DRDO sources who were part of the Agni-IV campaign said that the missile could go up to a maximum of 3,700 km and during the maiden launch it touched between 3,200-3,400 km, before hitting with target.
What is 3200KM-3400Km, the Target is fixed it is either 3200KM or 3250Km or 3400KM, unless MIRV and 2 warheads one 3200KM and anther 3400KM.

It could mean, probably, the trajectory is such that it could land anywhere between 3200 - 3400 km. Like all other previous Missile's Reentry Vehicles(RV) this is very likely a MaRV(Manoeuverable Reentry Vehicle). Or more precisely, in that profile, the trajectory can be shaped so that you can target from 3200 to 3400 km in range.

Another explanation could be, the trajectory is so low & flat or it moved beyond ship's sensor that ships placed to observe the event, that is expected to happen at 3000 km, couldn't properly pick the missile trajectory beyond 3200km and by extrapolating the trajectory, it could have been assessed that it could land anywhere between 3200 to 3400 km.

One can take whichever explanation that suits them.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2011 20:00

Singha wrote: some good footage of a Rus rail mobile launch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4eGFYN ... re=related

Nice compliation. I guess, Agni-II will be operated like that.

asgkhan · Post by **asgkhan** » 18 Nov 2011 20:39

Kanson wrote:
Singha wrote: some good footage of a Rus rail mobile launch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4eGFYN ... re=related
Nice compliation. I guess, Agni-II will be operated like that.

Whats the effect on the TEL vehicle after the missile is launched? It would be burned and thrown away/discarded?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2011 20:52

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1197223

neerajb wrote:shiv wrote:
Al this is fine to "sterilize" airspace that you can dominate. But imagine a war in which an Indian AWACS is monitoring airspace in which there are 15 Indian aircraft on a known path, and 8 unknown aircraft from the Chinese/Paki side. Are those unknown aircraft Chinese or Paki aircraft or are they Indian aircraft that have been pushed off course by interceptors as they return from an earlier attack. How do you identify them? If they are Indian aircraft trying to escape from a tricky situation and low on fuel they may not want to respond or give off any signals that would locate them. Do you simply shoot them all down with BVRAAM?

IFF is there on almost every AD platform right down to simple missiles like Stinger. IFF has it's own limitations but still, it's not the duty of the target to broadcast that it is friendly but the targetting system to identify the hostile. I know 99.99% people on this board understand what IFF is, nevertheless a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifica ... end_or_foe

This is what I am talking about, from the Wiki link

If no reply is received from the IFF transponder, the target continues to be an unknown. The IFF system is not used to declare a target hostile if they do not reply.

At BVR ranges and absence of IFF response does not prove that the aircraft is hostile. So what do you do? Shoot him down?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2011 20:57

>>Whats the effect on the TEL vehicle after the missile is launched? It would be burned and thrown away/discarded?

TEL vehicle is designed to withstand these launches. It will be reused.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 21:52

the inside coating of the tube is likely some heat resistant material that gets a bit soot blackened by the 1st stage ignition, but thats fine because missile and tube is pkged in the factory/missile BRD so the tube goes back for refurbishment and reuse...the truck itself is fine...it will have noise and NBC protected cabin for the operators and drivers to manage the launch console and communication channel.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Nov 2011 22:18

shiv wrote:At BVR ranges and absence of IFF response does not prove that the aircraft is hostile. So what do you do? Shoot him down?

There has been many cases of friendly fire due to IFF issue , there was this famous incident during Gulf War 2 when a Patriot 3 shot down Tornado due to IFF issue and in another case an F-16 got locked by PAC 3 battery and fortunately they fired a HARM and disabled it.

Reliable IFF is still a limiting factor , I think if a IFF shows the target as unknown then they try to confirm the unknow via R/T , the most safe way is to do a Visual check at the target thats means get too close to him.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2011 22:38

krishnan wrote:MIRV

with flex nozzle

. just jingoing

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 18 Nov 2011 23:41

At BVR ranges and absence of IFF response does not prove that the aircraft is hostile. So what do you do? Shoot him down?

1) Modern combat is rarely a one-on-one issue - it usually involves large packages of aircraft. The IFF will let you quickly determine the friendlies and thus eliminate them from the threat assessment.
2) Modern radars include NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) modes that let one analyze the radar return signatures and compare them against threat libraries. This will hopefully reduce the number of unidentified threats. Having the IFF lets the radar focus only on the unidentified ones.
3) Off-board sensors (AWACS, other aircraft, etc) may be able to identify the contacts and data-link the information back to you.
4) If all else fails and the contacts remain unidentified, the course of action is dictated by the rules of engagement. In a hot war, it may come down to shoot first and ask questions later.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2011 00:32

It is mandatory all our assets have IFF signatures and feedbacks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Nov 2011 04:11

Compare A-4 and Shourya specs with the US's AHW

AHW tested

Its Shourya type with A-4 flight time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Nov 2011 06:02

Raman wrote:
At BVR ranges and absence of IFF response does not prove that the aircraft is hostile. So what do you do? Shoot him down?
1) Modern combat is rarely a one-on-one issue - it usually involves large packages of aircraft. The IFF will let you quickly determine the friendlies and thus eliminate them from the threat assessment.
2) Modern radars include NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) modes that let one analyze the radar return signatures and compare them against threat libraries. This will hopefully reduce the number of unidentified threats. Having the IFF lets the radar focus only on the unidentified ones.
3) Off-board sensors (AWACS, other aircraft, etc) may be able to identify the contacts and data-link the information back to you.
4) If all else fails and the contacts remain unidentified, the course of action is dictated by the rules of engagement. In a hot war, it may come down to shoot first and ask questions later.

Here is what I wrote earlier

All this is fine to "sterilize" airspace that you can dominate. But imagine a war in which an Indian AWACS is monitoring airspace in which there are 15 Indian aircraft on a known path, and 8 unknown aircraft from the Chinese/Paki side. Are those unknown aircraft Chinese or Paki aircraft or are they Indian aircraft that have been pushed off course by interceptors as they return from an earlier attack. How do you identify them? If they are Indian aircraft trying to escape from a tricky situation and low on fuel they may not want to respond or give off any signals that would locate them. Do you simply shoot them all down with BVRAAM?

Shoot first and ask questions later is precisely what you don't want to do.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 19 Nov 2011 11:05

We have made countries think about making decisions against the established elitist clubs like NPT by simply growing to be a nice big market. Now people want us to buy their reactors when earlier we couldnt even talk about nuclear power. Now the US is willing to arm-twist assieland to supply us fuel for it. In light of such "enlightenment" if you please and the fact that we will be testing a 5k km range mijjile, how difficult would it be to get past another anachronism related to mijjiles namely MTCR? Would it be possible for us to source something like a Granit from roosland without anyone blinking an eye. Now I know people will say we shouldn't be party to LKK attitude but roosland has to sell it to us no? Can we make a case for 300K+ range mijjiles? Might be useful not just in cruise mijjile arena but also in aasm types too. jmt.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 19 Nov 2011 22:06

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=16762

Just laid the foundation for the building to build akash missiles?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Nov 2011 12:10

krishnan wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=16762

Just laid the foundation for the building to build akash missiles?

That's Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) production line for the recent IA order of 2 Akash "regiments" (~2,000 missiles replacing IA's 2 SA-6 Groups) with delivers beginning in Sept 2012. IAF order of 8 Akash squadrons (~1,000 missiles) is being handled by Bharat Electricals Limited (BEL) with deliveries beginning in 2009.

Bharat Dynamics Limited Signs Largest Ever Deal With Army for Akash Missiles

...
As per the plan, BDL will make 500 Akash missiles per year and the first batch for the Indian Army will roll out by September 2012. While BDL will be the main integrator for the Indian Army’s order for ‘Akash’ SAM, state-owned Bharat Electricals Limited (BEL), based in Bangalore, will be the main integrator of the ‘Akash’ SAM for the Indian Air Force order. According to the Indian Defence Minister A.K Anthony, the order is being split between two-state-run companies to create a healthy competition.
...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Nov 2011 14:06

Will they be able to proceed in such a manner that the first missile can be delivered to the IA by Sep 12 from this plant. Or will they be using a different plant for that particular task.

While on the subject of new plants fro new missiles. Will the NAG also have a separate plant where it can be built in large numbers. Or will it see service in small numbers as it can be considered an offensive Missile

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 21 Nov 2011 08:03

Any news on the Mark-II variant of the missile?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/ex ... n-two.html
The missile will have an intercept range of 30-35 km, or a little over 10-km more than the Mk-I version. Apart from extending range,the Mk-II project mandate will be to increase accuracy of the missile's guidance system and the fire control system, push up the missile's performance, agility, speed, efficiency and accuracy. This will involve tweaking of almost all major systems, including the missile itself, signal processors etc.

Supposed to be test fired in December 2011/January 2012.
If this takes place, the first missile the army gets in 2013 can be the Mark-II variant and the subsequent production for IAF from 2013 can be all Mark-II variants.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2011 07:54

With that range,a naval variant could also be developed,cost-effective for us despite Barak-8s development.If the Akash has the potential to also perform ABM duties,as SM-3s in the USN,then we will greatly enhance its capabilities and have a real winner on our hands.However,the scant details about Barak-8s development cloud the picture.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Nov 2011 08:41

I would rather Akash become our std, agile and world - class missile in the 5km - 35km range and make life very difficult for any intruder rather than be sluggish and big in the s300 sense. the MK2 idea looks right - not much increase if any in airframe size but systems to change.

the ground based radars can continue to change and improve.

at some point the Barak8(IAF/IA), Spyder and Akash control systems should be integrated and hence Akash radars will provide the cues to Spyder well before targets enter the Spyder range...and likewise Barak8 for Akash.

mikehurst · Post by **mikehurst** » 22 Nov 2011 12:06

http://defense-update.com/products/b/barak8.htm

the above link provides an update to the effect that Barak 8 / MR-SAM Test Program is likely to Begin in Early 2012. I was wondering if anyone could provide any info on what is the Indian contribution to this Project.

Assuming that each Barak system will consist of the radar, the seeker, the missile body, computers-programming-code, missile container, missile engine; what is the Indian contribution to this project. Or is our role limited primarily to being the financiers.

- Mike.