Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 18 May 2012 08:49

an old yankee istyle CM with contra-rotating props

and now a ruskie istyle KH101

Unless DRDO might have achieved something significant that both yankees and ruskies failed with their own versions, a turbo-prop version of a CM will be a huge liability

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 18 May 2012 09:03

turbo-prop version of a CM will be a huge liability

Again not turboprop but propfan. the first two pictures are of one of the American vehicles tried under the LRCSW proposals.

But yes, the programs were given up chiefly due to the enhanced radar return due to the propfan configuration.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2012 09:14

the KH101 model looks like the props are made of composite. that would not generate any return. or maybe metal can be coated with composite with a RAM material on top. it only needs to last for a couple hours of use, unlike a aircraft RAM coat.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 18 May 2012 09:32

Yep. For instance , Work done on the blades for the (now cancelled) Comanche program for instance could migrate to LRCSW type configurations.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 May 2012 10:29

GD afaik while the returned signal strength from a composite blade might not be of the same magnitude as a metal blade the problem with all exposed rotating blades is they modulate the impinging RF signal at a frequency corresponding to the blade RPM which is a very distinct pattern and shall be picked up by a volume search radar.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2012 10:53

if the fans are hidden within a cowl and deeply shrouded inlets bring the air in, would cover 3/4 of the problem. the rear aspect would still be open, but even turbofan cruise missile would have a tailpipe into which RF can bounce and hit the interior of combustion chamber and the rear set of blades .... imo the cowled propfan might have better RCS than the drop down engine of KH55 or fixed engined of KH59 with fully exposed compressor face.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 May 2012 11:45

^ That is my understanding too, there is a old joke about the Tu-142 , they say RCS of it's huge props is not a big problem because the noise from it's engines reaches the enemy even before that.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 May 2012 11:51

Propfan technology was studied for Kh-101 but was dropped in favour of ducted turbofan. The main advantage of Propfan is that its fuel effecient and can provide enhanced range , the disadvantage is its blades are exposed and those contrarotating blades can be picked up by any modern radar , most modern radars can actually count the number of blades if its exposed, i read even BARS of MKI can do that

For stealth ducted turbofan is a much better option , you can opt for S duct type intake and treat the duct and blades with RAM to reduce the rcs much further , something not possible with Propfan or directly exposed fan like Kh-59.

The mean rcs value of Kh-101 has been reduced to 0.01m2 compared to 0,2m2 of Tomahawk/Kh-55 class due to use of ducted turbofan and shaping when viewed in X band of RF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2012 12:00

I totally agree that for DPSA conventional/strategic weapon, the KH101 model of shaping and ducted turbofan is the way go.

but for a long loiter ops at tactical and medium depth level (like interdicting enemy LOCs feeding into the battle area), some kind of piston engined Harpy/Harop and this propfan thing are the way to go imo as they give much better endurance allegedly. the threat levels will not be super high and the payload conventional, guidance need not be the fancy "dual" systems of a long range missile, more simpler and oriented to keep cost low.

in short a Super-harop if you will - with 10 times the endurance, better payload and domestically made..if cost is less we can issue them to all the artillery divisions and brigades liberally to be used at discretion of infantry division commander for each sector.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 May 2012 13:42

Guys,

will the radar return from propfan be a major issue for a missile flying at tree top level.

Will the ground clutter not be sufficient to mask the additional radar return induced by the propfan.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 May 2012 14:34

There are enough good low level radar and low level sam that a cruise missile mayl have to pass through before it reaches its target , ofcourse there would be AWACS and Balloon based Radar looking for low level targets

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 18 May 2012 17:14

Actually every variant has their own advantages and disadvantages. And depending upon their respective roles,we have to do a trade-off here.

As it was well known that there are atleast 2 variants of Nirbhay were under development,DRDO might be looking for a solution of all sorts with different models.

A turbofan variant was in the making for a long time ,even enginee being developed in-house with external help.

And now the prop-fan came out from no where just based on the word "loitering capability". Either it might be pure assumption or chanakyan.

A propfan version can be confused with a low flying UAV at dashing speeds

changing the defensive posture of enemy?

A good ducted prop-fan with contour shaping airframe for good ultra low-visibility flying at 30m above ground level, I bet will be a nightmare for the enemy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2012 18:59

like piranhas they should be let roam far and wide in the river. but a drop of blood hits the water and 100s converge using a homing beacon of sorts. very soon all the flesh is gone and only the bones remain.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2012 20:04

the duct weight is another aspect to consider, weighed against the additional thrust. but, then if it is stealth disadvantage, there are various coating techs, and kevlar composites for help.

again all depends on the mission profile... terrain hugging walas with highest velocity possible, with near lo on detection for long distance is a game changer.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 May 2012 20:11

Austin wrote:There are enough good low level radar and low level sam that a cruise missile mayl have to pass through before it reaches its target , ofcourse there would be AWACS and Balloon based Radar looking for low level targets

I don't think our enemies have so many resources to mount a 24 by 7 look down on every sector. Even if spotted, one needs to be able to counteract it or stop it and thats a different ball game.

We should perfect the cheapest option we can.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2012 20:18

passive receivers can help planning the route on long range missions.. more intelligence is required on board, where on hit by bandwidths, the missile could quickly detour on a safer path. capability can be established, and that would be very promising tech for UCAV dual use.

kvraghavaiah · Post by **kvraghavaiah** » 18 May 2012 22:01

SaiK wrote:I sold it to couple of chippandas at work! .. cause they want do the shiver part of it.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 18 May 2012 23:47

Rakshaks, sorry to interrupt the ongoing discussion, but…

This post may not win me many friends here on BRF, yet it needs to be written, and this is the only place to post it.

I have not written the following with the intention to find fault with others; particularly if I have mistaken their meaning or if they have mistaken their expression. (Side Note: I recently made what I thought was a clever post in the ‘Agni 5’ thread, only to later realize that I had sloppily finished the post with the word “fusion” instead of “fission” (or was it, vice-versa?), which totally futzed-up one of my key points. Disappointingly, nobody suggested giving me the benefit of the doubt, and I was repeatedly corrected for the technical error, rather than for the typo it actually was.)

Something happened back there in this dhagga (an ***INTELLIGENCE FAILURE***) on page nineteen, that I think bears a much closer examination. IN BRIEF: We received what constituted a “hot tip” via Rakshak ‘koti’, but because of what seems a lot like “groupthink”, the tip was never properly recognized or analyzed, not while it was current, and neither now that it is stale. As a result, the (in as much as it supposedly exists) credibility of the ‘BRF brain trust’ must necessarily be called into question. This reflects poorly on all of us; yet at the same time I couldn’t stand it going entirely unnoticed, and unexamined, so here goes….

To call this intelligence failure a failure of imagination also wouldn’t be wrong, except that imagination wasn’t necessary, because it all started with a photo, plain for all to see. Allow me….

On 06 Mar 2012 at BRF system time 08:00, Rakshak ‘koti’ coyly posted in this very same BRF thread the two lines “OMG” and “Is that what I think it is?” along with an outbound link to a Google+ pic posted by one “Anantha Krishnan M. (AK)” (who is, I believe, a journalist – correct me if I’m wrong). The pic is shown again below, under the table, enlarged and with my mark-ups, to save you the trip.

[Here's the link to koti's original post: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1252175 ]

Of the subsequent 38 posts in the thread that were germane to koti’s original post; only three posts were “on the money”, IMO (and these are shown in the table below in green). Of course, even until now, these three posts are not “popularly accepted” here on BRF (I am guessing), and I am interested to see the response to this particular (countervailing) post of mine.

Sadly, most posts offered in response to koti’s question displayed hollow or no reasoning. Rather, they were repetitions of other’s unsubstantiated assertions, or even just flat out “I agree with so-and-so” without any reason given as for why they thought that way. Some, at least, tried to be creative; but unfortunately they did so in support of “seemingly accepted wisdom” instead of the available photographic evidence. (I have depicted all these posts with red text).

Only five posts even attempted to offer critical analysis of what was being posted in the thread. (These posts I have depicted with bold black text). Again, sadly, no one seemed interested to follow-up these dissenting thoughts with further examination; for if they had, maybe there wouldn’t have been such a resoundingly erroneous chorus, repeated again and again and again (re: GSLV mk3).

http://www.synerlux.com/For_BRF/response_table.gif
just to be clear about what happened:

1) On 06/03/2012 8:00:00 AM, Rakshak koti posted a link to a pic;

2) By 06/03/2012 2:01:00 PM, at least three posts suggested/asked if the picture showed an SLBM canister. This idea was drowned-out by the much more popular theory of a GSLV mk3 end stage (even though this makes absolutely no sense, and was seemingly based solely on a crude estimate of dimensions, never mind materials, construction, features, *weld lines*, morphology, etc.). Apparently, nobody even examined the canister idea, and absolutely nobody even took notice of the (very peculiar, two-halve) hoisting rig, obviously designed for substantial weight, not an SLV end-stage made of (seamless!) composites. If Rakshak “sum” and Rakshak “MN Kumar” are like me, then they offered their thoughts without reading much of what others wrote before them (which is arguably also our failure, even though we were correct about the pic showing an SLBM canister in its hoisting rig; please see my marked-up pic below).

3) After 38 on-topic responses to koti’s original post, on 14/03/2012 1:36:00 PM, Rakshak Marut posted a link to an article that appeared in the BR news feed. This article was dated March 13, and it discussed the test firing of a K-15 missile from a submerged and towed pontoon, two days prior, on Sunday, March 11, 2012.

4) In fact, we here at BRF were alerted to this potentiality five days prior to this launch date, and seven days before the news article was published, but collectively, we failed to notice (even while a few of us did indeed see what was coming).

Behold the pic in question…

http://www.synerlux.com/For_BRF/India_SLBM_Canister.gif

The misapprehension of clear photographic evidence should *not* have happened here on BRF. The reasons why it did should give pause to each of us; should temper the way we read what is written here, and how we may chose to write back (or not write back).

Jumping to false conclusions too quickly is sometimes a hazard with the things we see and don’t understand immediately. This is somewhat less of a risk with the things we learn by taking the time to listen. This is because time often helps with understanding, in part because we need time to process (particularly complex) information; and trying to do this too quickly can easily lead to mistakes. If we can concentrate our attention and “look slower” and also spend the time to “listen deeper” (and read more carefully); altogether this can only make us “smarter”, as a group and as individuals.

MOVING FORWARD: I would respectfully suggest that we should all be more careful when we find ourselves eager to dismiss a discordant idea, or keen to disregard a dissenting opinion or discard a difficult question. This is not how a confident intellect approaches complex issues, and if we, each of us, cannot at least try to get this much right, then perhaps we need to do more reading and less writing. JMT.

Thanks for your attention, Rakshaks.

I sincerely hope we can all ‘take it to heart’; although I am more certain that someone will try yet again, to browbeat me about how the pic shows a GSLV mk3 end-stage. (Actually, in a perverse kind of way; I’m sorta looking forward to it!)

Confidential to Rakshak koti: What exactly did you think it was, in the first instance? (You never clarified!)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 May 2012 23:53

Shiv Aroor is something really ! He first comes up with some really wierd looking design that he himself claims is his own imagination at work on what a Nirbhay will look like, and NOW claims that even he wishes that it looks nothing like what he imagined it will look like !

Then what on earth did he put those images up for? To scare everyone with his dated imagination or just to get eyes to his blog claiming he had some new stuff on the Nirbhay..clearly he lied, since he didn't.

link

I'd just like to reassure everyone -- Like I said in the post, I'm one of the people who hopes the Nirbhay looks nothing like the artistic impressions that I had made. It it does, it'll be one of the clunkiest, quaintest weapons we've ever built.

(Could someone tell the dude that it was HIS OWN artistic impression and shows how easy it is to criticize others but when he comes up with something, it looks like it belongs to the 1950's era !)

It was only a bit of guesswork based on what we know so far. I truly hope what we dont know about the Nirbhay dictates all its philosophies. And that's why the post title is question. We know literally nothing meaningful about how the weapon looks. But hopefully we'll know more soon.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 19 May 2012 00:22

Even the latest Nirbhay post comes with similar disclaimer.

Ravi Karumanchiri:

If it's really a canister, then what do you think it's height is ? How will it fit into Arihant ?

and read tarmak's comments on the teaser picture in his blog.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 May 2012 01:53

Ravi ji,

This is what it is:
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/search/label/ISRO

The GSLV MK-III payload fairing (PLF) undergoes rigorous qualification process for the flight-readiness at the Acoustic Test Facility of NAL in Bangalore. The core team and scientists associated with the project are also seen. Express Photo: Sudhakar Jain

Added later:
You think that nobody builds a nose-cone with a seam through the center. ISRO does:

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 19 May 2012 03:04

Ravi Ji, you really worked hard on that post i admit..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2012 03:54

Atleast he tried no?

Ravi K, Good effort. However needed background in aero structures to get to right conclusion.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1252182

I was off about the vehicle and so wrong also.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 19 May 2012 05:00

@ Ravi,

Dude, are you really serious?

I wish I get that much of time

By the way, wasnt it concluded to be the payload faring the very same day that pic surfaced on the web?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2012 05:12

Again learn to appreciate the effort.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 May 2012 06:01

jamwal wrote:...

If it's really a canister, then what do you think it's height is ?

....

Here's how you can guess-estimate the height:

Code: Select all

Given,

    * Number of steps on the ladder on the exo-structure: around 36 steps  
    * Number of steps as to the height of the man (near the top): around 6 steps
    * Average height of Indian male: 5 feet 4 inches

This means,
    = (36 steps / 6 steps) * 5.4 feet
    -> The height of the "canister" is approximately 32 feet 4 inches

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 May 2012 08:55

jamwal wrote:Even the latest Nirbhay post comes with similar disclaimer.

Ravi Karumanchiri:

If it's really a canister, then what do you think it's height is ? How will it fit into Arihant ?

and read tarmak's comments on the teaser picture in his blog.

I am not an expert. I have acontrary view. it could be the GSLV upper with sats loaded and protective cover (the plastic kindda thing) and then a casing.

If you cross Saurya (which is alleged K-15 derivative) and the alleged K-15 launcher (as released by DRDO), IMHO, this might not be the pontoon.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 19 May 2012 11:17

Did someone edit my previous post ?? I don't remember writing this line "and read tarmak's comments on the teaser picture in his blog."

srai
32 feet is very close to 10 meters

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 May 2012 12:01

^^^^

Well, I was serious..... Now I have to weigh the possibilty that the pic was a genuine leak, and the GSLV story is part of an elaborate cover-up, and you're all in on it...................... Or................. I was wrong.

Oh well, "Go big or go home!", I always say!

Thanks to all who've penned appreciation for my efforts, erroneous though they were.

Yes, the post probably took a fair bit of time, but consider; that time was spread over the last two months.

It's amazing what you can accomplish in life when you forego spectator sports, video games and Facebook.
(I'll watch the Olympics and big boxing, big football (i.e. 'soccer') games, occassionally a bit of MMA and F1; but that's it; nothing regular; no IPL/ NFL/ NHL/ or NBA for me; nor DS-or-wii-or-whatever; nor Facebook/ Second Life, etc. either.

Life's too short!
(Although, there's always time to make a mistake, that's for sure!)

Kind regards,
RK

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 19 May 2012 12:13

After reading your detailed post, i was awestruck & a believer!

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 May 2012 12:19

^^^^^
Awww, shucks!

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 19 May 2012 12:22

we are envious of your efforts.
You did try very well

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 May 2012 14:27

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: Confidential to Rakshak koti: What exactly did you think it was, in the first instance? (You never clarified!)

I was hoping it was Agni V.
It seems naive now but it was pure instinct back then.

And can anyone compare the size of the cap like structure with the size of K15/K4?
Also, from Indranil's pics the super structure supporting the Payload faring seems very minimal suggesting composite material and light weight, however the superstructure in the contested pic is build for something that is far heavier it seems.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 19 May 2012 14:47

According to Tarmak
GSLV-MK-III payload fairing completes acoustic tests at NAL | Inter-stages, strap-on boosters next in line for qualification process
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2012/03/gs ... letes.html
That clears all doubts.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 19 May 2012 17:02

chackojoseph wrote:
jamwal wrote:Even the latest Nirbhay post comes with similar disclaimer.

Ravi Karumanchiri:

If it's really a canister, then what do you think it's height is ? How will it fit into Arihant ?

and read tarmak's comments on the teaser picture in his blog.
I am not an expert. I have acontrary view. it could be the GSLV upper with sats loaded and protective cover (the plastic kindda thing) and then a casing.

If you cross Saurya (which is alleged K-15 derivative) and the alleged K-15 launcher (as released by DRDO), IMHO, this might not be the pontoon.

Sir Ji,

That was a pontoon onlee for testesting of K-15/K-4 under sea.

AFAIK, that was a universal launcher with capability to launch missiles of upto 2.2m dia and upto 12m lenght.

The sub-launched ones will be sleek for good accommodation and real estate needs.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 May 2012 17:17

Correct Sir.

This is the launcher

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 May 2012 19:41

^Is that a pontoon too?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 May 2012 20:35

simple size matter, and it should reveal what type of vehicle it is. Kxv or Av and GSLV would have at least 1:3 size ratio difference.

disha · Post by **disha** » 19 May 2012 20:45

koti wrote:^Is that a pontoon too?

No. It is just a canisterized road mobile launcher.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Thanks to all who've penned appreciation for my efforts, erroneous though they were.

That was quite an effort., and now I feel bad on missing out on your hall of fame. Since several had already called it out as GSLV's fairing. Now think about it.,if the person standing on that is looking so small., can that fit a spacecraft with 3 humans on board? All GSLV Mk III needs is then human rating. But again the gobernment's policy is in fits and starts and reactionary.

(Although, there's always time to make a mistake, that's for sure!)

Never tell that to your parents though :ROFL:

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 20 May 2012 09:33

Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:00 IST
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dn ... pm_1690275

Scientists of the Bangalore-based National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), closely monitoring the development of nuclear weapons and missiles in India’s immediate neighbourhood, have concluded that the Hatf IV Shaheen 1A missile recently test-fired by the Pakistan establishment had almost the same capabilities of the earlier Shaheen 1 and was hardly an improvement of the previous weapons system.

Contesting the claim made by Islamabad that it was an “upgraded” and “improved” version of its existing intermediate range ballistic missile, the scientists have forwarded a note to the Prime Minister’s Office saying that they did not notice much improvement in its capabilities. Pakistan had gone ahead with the test soon after India launched its long range Agni-V missile which can reach targets at a distance of 5,000 km.

Significantly enough, the report hints at the possibility that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A missile might have been tested only as a response to India testing the long range Agni V. The scientists could not trace any major technological development in the missile which would have necessitated this experiment. The suggestion is that the April 25 launch carried out by Pakistan was virtually needless and was prompted by the need to make a statement of belligerence.

These scientists carried out their research under the International Strategic and Security Studies Programme (ISSSP) of the NIAS and made their inferences after having tracked precisely 40 ballistic missile tests carried out by Pakistan since 1998. They have been monitoring the various launches of Ghauri, Shaheen 1/1A, Ghaznavi, Abdali and Shaheen 2 missiles which Islamabad has been touting with much fanfare.

In the note, the NIAS says: “Information on the launch including an image of the missile was put out by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan. The news release claimed that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A Weapon System as an improved version of Shaheen-1 with improvements in range and technical parameters.”

Using the image of the missile put out by Pakistan, the ISSSP carried out an evaluation of Pakistan’s capability and analysed whether any new developments could be inferred from this launch to substantiate the claim of range improvement. The scientists concluded,“A comparison of the April 25th image with earlier images...shows no significant change in the length of the missile (11.5 m to 11.6 m) or any change in the re-entry part of the missile.”

In fact, the scientists have relied on various Shaheen 1 images of October 2002, March 2004 and November 2006 to compare the existing data with those of the latest launch on April 25. The study shows that the “operational flight length” of all these missiles is almost the same varying between 11.43 m to 11.62 m. The report says, “There are no changes evident in the stage configuration and the main aerodynamic fins at the end of the missile and the exhaust look similar. The overall warhead length is comparable with the other images...”

The only minor changes, which the report finds are that the forward part of the re-entry vehicle is shorter (the length in the April 2012 launch is 1.6 m compared to 2.3 m in the earlier launches) and the re-entry vehicle in the recent launch has no stabilising fins (the earlier flown configurations were equipped with a set of four fins).

According to the report, the changes seen are minor and are not inconsistent with some improvements in the re-entry vehicles including its control and avionics systems. There may be some reduction in the weight of the re-entry vehicle. “However, they do not appear to be greatly significant... and do not have much impact on the missile range.”

The report further states:“Our assessment of the range of Shaheen 1 was 673 km for a launch from Islamabad in a south eastern (Azimuth 135 degrees) direction with a 1,000 kg re-entry vehicle . We do not find any evidence from the image put out by Pakistan to change this assessment. Longer range is however possible if Pakistan has reduced the missile throw-mass to below 1,000 kg.”

This particular study suggests that the latest Pakistani missile test does not cause too much worry to the Indian establishment. There was an anticipation of such a tit-for-tat launch. Now that the data suggests that it was basically old wine in new bottle with minor tinkering, the Bangalore-based monitoring agency appears to be satisfied.