Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 08 Jun 2012 02:27

indranilroy wrote:...

And what would be the acuteness of those maneuvers. I know for sure that fighter planes when flying supersonic don't undertake more than 12 (may be 15) degrees AoA and <5Gs. There is just too much momentum when flying at that speeds to make any sharp changes in direction.

Actually, the maneuvering limits of fighter aircraft are dictated by the limits of human endurance. More than so many Gs and it doesn't matter if the airframe can pull it off if the pilot is blacked-out and smooshed-up against the inside of his helmet.

The Akash site says it can pull 15 Gs, and I believe it, because there's no pilot on board. That's why planes outmaneuvering missiles is tricky business, particularly at close range.

It's really not about "momentum", it's about the pilot's cerebral bloodflow.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jun 2012 03:15

I understand, but:

At 15 Gs and 3000 kmph, the radius of the turn is 6 times greater and the angular velocity (rate of change of direction) is 0.73 times of the angular velocity of a vehicle pulling 5Gs at 720 kmph.

At 15 Gs and 3000 kmph, the radius of the turn is 10 times greater and the angular velocity (rate of change of direction) is 0.4 times of the angular velocity of a vehicle pulling 9Gs at 720 kmph.

And we know that planes and pilots in them can be pulling 9Gs and more if need be

.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Jun 2012 05:04

Probly a piss-poor comparison but here are some questions -

What is more difficult to intercept?

a) Subsonic cruise missile with greater maneuverability ? OR
b) Supersonic cruise missile with less maneuverability?

Is this akin to

a) Bug that moves slow but is all over the place ala mosquito?
b) Bug that moves super-fast ala wasp?

Once in motion I think the latter alternative is much more difficult to intercept. Again, you got to see it to kill it, and the later you see it the less your chances.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jun 2012 06:37

CM Sahab, I am sorry but I don't think it is a right comparison. It is an oversimplification and not to scale. The 3D CAR radar has a range of upto 150 km. Suppose, it picks up a Brahmos class missile at 100 kms, it will still provide the Akash system 100 seconds to react. Even after the target is passed on to the BLR, there is 60 more secs. The maximum flight time of the Akash missile is about 40 secs. So there is atleast 20 seconds to react. The reaction time required for the Akash system is 15 secs. So, 'not visible' is not the case here.

The primary questions are:

1. How quickly can I identify the target?
2. How much time do I have to react?
3. How to manage countermeasures adopted?

It is obvious, that a plane, a subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic cruise missile offer different levels of challenges for the above 3 questions. My feeling is that a subsonic cruise missile would be the easiest to defeat as it does not have the variety and non-determinism of evasive measures that a piloted plane can take or the small reaction time that a Brahmos class cruise missile provides.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2012 06:49

Cain Marko wrote:Probly a piss-poor comparison but here are some questions -

What is more difficult to intercept?

a) Subsonic cruise missile with greater maneuverability ? OR
b) Supersonic cruise missile with less maneuverability?

Is this akin to

a) Bug that moves slow but is all over the place ala mosquito?
b) Bug that moves super-fast ala wasp?

Once in motion I think the latter alternative is much more difficult to intercept. Again, you got to see it to kill it, and the later you see it the less your chances.

Does not matter what it is.

The question is about how good are you at predicting such movements. IF you can predict where they will be at a given oint in time, you win. Else ................ better to breed jihadies.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Jun 2012 12:20

Don't know if it belongs here

Javelin Sale To India On Track

Indian army spokesman Col. Jagdeep Dahiya told Aviation Week on June 7 that “India is likely to get approximately 8,000 [Javelin] missiles and 300 launchers.”

300 launchers?
8000 missiles?
Are the numbers correct?
27 missiles per launcher?
Isn't the launcher just the sighting/targeting unit attached to the disposable missile container or is it a bi/tri-pod based one?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 12:39

I believe it comes in sealed tube but the optics unit is detachable..and hence reused. a peculiar padmasana type yogic posture is needed to launch it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2012 12:42

koti wrote: 300 launchers?
8000 missiles?
Are the numbers correct?
27 missiles per launcher?
Isn't the launcher just the sighting/targeting unit attached to the disposable missile container or is it a bi/tri-pod based one?

Would imagine that around 900 would be used for training, assuming three per launcher. ??????

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Jun 2012 12:53

That is still 25 missiles per launcher.
If the Launcher is not functionable, all the missiles carried by the unit will be a waste. AFAIK, 3-6 missiles per launcher are usually seen. They will be distributed among the section or platoon.

Related??

The other international orders of Javelin also have one to six proportion of launchers and missiles.

Over 25,000 missiles have been produced and over 6,600 command launch units sold to the US Army and Marine Corps. Javelin has also been selected by Taiwan (60 launchers and 360 missiles), Lithuania, Jordan (30 launchers and 110 missiles), Australia (up to 92 systems and 600 missiles), New Zealand (24 launchers, delivered in June 2006), Norway (90 launchers and 526 missiles, delivery from 2006) and Ireland.

Link
But One launcher for 25 missiles is little ludicrous.
Either the numbers are wrong or signify some other type of launcher.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 11 Jun 2012 15:31

But wouldn't some of these missiles be reserves/backups?

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 11 Jun 2012 17:15

I think these are direct buy 8000 and 300 from the US. I am sure we will have a much larger order of around 30000 built in india under licence with many more launchers.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jun 2012 21:27

koti wrote:That is still 25 missiles per launcher.
If the Launcher is not functionable, all the missiles carried by the unit will be a waste. AFAIK, 3-6 missiles per launcher are usually seen. They will be distributed among the section or platoon.

Related??

The other international orders of Javelin also have one to six proportion of launchers and missiles.
Over 25,000 missiles have been produced and over 6,600 command launch units sold to the US Army and Marine Corps. Javelin has also been selected by Taiwan (60 launchers and 360 missiles), Lithuania, Jordan (30 launchers and 110 missiles), Australia (up to 92 systems and 600 missiles), New Zealand (24 launchers, delivered in June 2006), Norway (90 launchers and 526 missiles, delivery from 2006) and Ireland.
Link
But One launcher for 25 missiles is little ludicrous.
Either the numbers are wrong or signify some other type of launcher.

You are right. I would think 600 launchers is more likely for 8,000 missiles.

The IA has around 300+ battalions. Typical battalion has an ATGM company with 2 launchers and x number of missiles. So 600 launchers would be more plausible. This would mean around 13 Javelins per launcher or 26 Javelins per ATGM company.

If a ATGM company is made of two 4-man section, each section could be divided into 1 man carrying launcher and 3 men carrying 2 missiles each -- a total of 6 missiles and 1 launcher per section. With two sections deployed, it would mean 12 missiles and 2 launchers in the field with another 12 missiles in reserves. There would need to be some reserves for the launchers as well.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 11 Jun 2012 21:33

Those numbers might make more sense if deployment plans call for extensive pre-positioning of missiles (which are fairly rugged), versus the high portability and high maintenance requirements of the optical kit CLU (Control Launch Units). These things have cooling requirements, and then there's the field diagnostic kits and whatnot. The missiles don't really need maintenance, whereas that other kit does. (Better to carry that.)

If deployment plans call for caches of these missiles on various mountain passes (where the natural choke-points make it truly decisive in a defensive role), these numbers make perfect sense (because moving across vallies is difficult). Not only are the missiles the heavier component, the explosive nature of the missiles pose their own handling hazards.

Pre-positioning dispersed caches of missiles, and therefore needing a high ratio of missiles / CLUs, seems to be the case.

Either that, or India plans to manufacture their own CLUs and mate them with the missiles.

A bit of Googling reveals multiple mentions of licensed manufacture and numbers from 44,000 to 60,000 of these missiles (although, I am unclear if this is the "sanctioned strength", the "mandated strength" or however else these guys count); and whether these counts pertain to a specific missile or the overall ATGM inventory (which include large numbers of MILAN and KONKURS that would seem better suited to the 'Western Sector'.

Something like the Javelin in a mountainous area, is decisive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

BUT: Nothing is perfect........ Javelin "EPIC FAIL"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNLqFHH-oQ

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jun 2012 21:47

^^^

Most likely, these new 8,000 Javelins will replace an equivalent number of older Milan 2s in service. There are supposed to be 30,000 Milan 2 units built over the last 20 years by BDL and another 4,100 Milan 2T units to be built. If Javelins become the de-facto man-portable ATGM, then one could make a guess that around 35,000 (8,000 direct and 27,000 license built) would be produced over time.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jun 2012 21:51

Did US State Dept cut down the no of launchers by half? That would definitely impact the cold launch by reducing the no of units that can swing into action simultaneously. Reducing the no of total missiles will reduce persistence and will not be effective enough in "managing tension" as IA has other options like milan, konkur etc to persue once javlin stocks are over in breaking though the door. Sounds plausible or am i seeing a conspiracy theory where none exists?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2012 22:37

srai wrote: <SNIP> Typical battalion has an ATGM company with 2 launchers and x number of missiles. So 600 launchers would be more plausible. This would mean around 13 Javelins per launcher or 26 Javelins per ATGM company.

<SNIP>

You're number of launchers per battalion is off the mark. The number should be around 8 Missile Launchers per Battalion with 1+5 Missiles per launchers.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 11 Jun 2012 22:45

wondering what will be the price of Javelins. wouldn't non western equivalent be economical.
whats so high tech about javelins. why not 9M133 Kornets.
As far as i remember. they are lethal and have record of penetrating merkava's armour.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2012 22:46

Looks like you can buy any number of missiles as you want but only limited number of launchers! That way TSP and US business guys will be happy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 23:06

kornet is a heavy ATGM in nag class - not man portable.

for some reason Milan2T is considered passe and contest was between Spike and Javelin. the swedish bill2 is also in same category.

unlike the lofted top attack path of javelin (and Nag), the Bill2 flies directly and overflies the target, releasing a copper penetrator from the vertical direction for top attack
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... /bof10.jpg

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Jun 2012 00:27

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote: <SNIP> Typical battalion has an ATGM company with 2 launchers and x number of missiles. So 600 launchers would be more plausible. This would mean around 13 Javelins per launcher or 26 Javelins per ATGM company.

<SNIP>
You're number of launchers per battalion is off the mark. The number should be around 8 Missile Launchers per Battalion with 1+5 Missiles per launchers.

Thanks for the correction.

~2,800 ATGM launchers -> 350 battalions x 8 launchers
~16,800 ATGM missiles -> 350 battalions x 8 launchers x 6 missiles [48 ATGM missiles per battalion]
xx -> Plus, launcher and missile reserves

So for 8,000 Javelin missiles, around 1,400 launchers would be required. If these 8,000 missiles are equally divided amongst 350 battalions, each battalion would end up with around 24 missiles and 4 launchers. The other half would still use Milans.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 12 Jun 2012 03:21

Ramana might be spot on. The "Javelin back on track" post-Panetta-visit could be a half-truth.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2012 04:08

So what was the original IA hoped for order for the Javelins? How many birds and how many launchers? We now know its setteld at 8000 missiles and 300 launchers. And this was after it was 'pared down'.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 07:47

with paltry 300 launchers only our SF units, para brigade and a couple of mountain brigades might get some. one can forget about mass deployment to replace the 1000s of Milan2 launchers with the infantry.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Jun 2012 09:21

Lets hope even these small numbers are not restricted to the Chinese theatre.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2012 09:28

But has the Javelin been tested along with rival missiles? How was it evaluated?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 12 Jun 2012 09:34

Lets hope this a gap filler with a future Nag with lesser propelant and reduced range can match the 25kg of the Javelin.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 12 Jun 2012 09:41

The original desire by IA is unknown. Rajat Pandit claimed that the IA was deficient by about 40K ATGMs and ended up ordering 4K+ Milans etc. So, I'd assume a 8-10K order for Javelins would be very much on the cards

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 09:44

the small Konkurs ATGM fired out of our BMPs using manual reloads is both slow to reload, short range and does not look capable to taking on modern MBTs. imo they might be of some use on other IFVs but thats about it.

apparently we ordered : 15,000 Konkurs-M, ordered in 2008 for Rs 1,380-crore per wiki.

imo in the mould of western IFV, 4 Nags strapped to the side of BMP turret would have been a better hit.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... dardo1.jpg

or even convert some of the BMPs to namicas and spread around liberally.

koti · Post by **koti** » 12 Jun 2012 09:46

Singha wrote:with paltry 300 launchers only our SF units, para brigade and a couple of mountain brigades might get some. one can forget about mass deployment to replace the 1000s of Milan2 launchers with the infantry.

I don't think IA will accept such a scenario saab.
These launchers could also mean vehicle based launchers. Or some other type of mounted launchers perhaps. 1:25 is too bad to be true.
If we look at other exports of Javelin, the ratio or around 1:6. I believe this would have the reserves included.

srai wrote:^^^
Most likely, these new 8,000 Javelins will replace an equivalent number of older Milan 2s in service. There are supposed to be 30,000 Milan 2 units built over the last 20 years by BDL and another 4,100 Milan 2T units to be built. If Javelins become the de-facto man-portable ATGM, then one could make a guess that around 35,000 (8,000 direct and 27,000 license built) would be produced over time.

The total order book of Javelin till date is around 25-30K missiles AFAIK saab.
Being expensive, I don't think they will be ordered as one to one replacements for Milan 2T. Also, htere was a gigantic Milan2T order just 3-4 years ago so their replacement might not be on the horizon this decade atleast.
I think Javelins will be limited to the offensive elements and Milan will be employed among defensive elements.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 12 Jun 2012 10:24

I felt javelin would be man portable fire and forget missile .Which would would help the launching crew to take cover after firing the missile.It would become a infantry support weapon.The wonderful merit i found is it's weight and the fire and forget facility.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Jun 2012 10:40

24 March 2011: The Indian ATGM requirement was leaked to the press by "Indian Ministry of Defence officials", in favour of the Israel Spike missile at the time, with the order being for 321 launchers and 8,356 missiles.

soutikghosh wrote:India to acquire Spike ATGM in mega deal

LINK: http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000633160&fid=1725

* Deal includes 321 Spike launchers, 8,356 missiles, and 15 training simulators, and peripheral equipment for the Indian Army and is worth $1 billion
* India's Bharat Dynamics Ltd to get ToT
* Indian Army will receive various configurations of the Spike

We know the Javelin was eventually selected.

So the number of 300 launchers and 8000 missiles isn't entirely at odds with the Indian requirement.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 12 Jun 2012 18:24

thanks to twinblade from mil photus.net

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 19:22

very nice and simple experiment there...

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 12 Jun 2012 19:36

http://www.defencenow.com/news/143/indi ... om-us.html

The Spike was ordered for the BMP-2 upgrade. Javelin will be ordered for the infantry. I think with full-tot since now no more CISMOA, we will certainly end up with an order of around 40000 missiles with 8000 missiles bought off the shelf for immediate use with SF/ Ghatak units and another 32000+ to be licence built in India over a period of a decade. Full-filling this large order would take quite some by that time the existing Milans will be phased out.

A realistically speaking, we should certainly see the number of infantry battalions increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if with in the next couple of decades we add another 50 battalions. This makes sense since we are nation with still a rapid increase in population, the laws for economics and defence directly call for a larger force. By 2025, we should have around 400 battalions. With an order of 40000, we can have a 100 missiles per battalion, with 4000 launchers, we can have 10 launchers per battalion, 10 missiles per launcher. This should be an ideal number.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Jun 2012 20:01

Thank you.

It cannot be that we asked only for 300 launchers of man-portable platform if the corresponding number for Spike was for the BMP. Ramana ji might as well be right.

Any evidence of ToT?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Jun 2012 20:22

Can you point a reference to TOT for Javelins ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jun 2012 20:28

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19014

alliance with the US, such that they make their airspace available for such operations or that the NGB will be so stealthy that it will penetrate Indian airspace at will before doing the same to the Chinese. Neither is, of course, a particularly settling prospect to India. Not to mention that a Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal impinges on a core area of interest for India and can surveillance seed numerous Indian facilities in the vicinity, including missile test ranges.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 12 Jun 2012 20:55

Cybaru wrote:Can you point a reference to TOT for Javelins ?

"The defence ministry proposes to issue a Letter of Request (LoR) to the US government under their Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route for procurement of third generation anti-tank guided missile along with transfer of technology," defence minister AK Antony said in a written reply to a query.

The acquisition of this third generation anti-tank guided missile system will be undertaken under the US government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme and will also involve transfer of technology.

Here

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jun 2012 00:16

Well, this order for 300 launchers and 8,000 missiles IMO is the initial order to fill in the gap. Please remember that the order for 4K Milan-2T ATGM with tandem warhead was a stop-gap measure - this when the missile had not met the range requirement. IA has clearly defined road map as far as man portable ATGM is considered - it wants 3rd Gen F&F Missile. The induction of Javelin (outright purchase and local manufacture) will match with phasing out of Milan-2T. And Singha is right on the increase in Infantry Battalions - IA has asked for 7-11 new Mountain Divisions to fill gaps from north to north-east including Mountain Strike Corps. That is increment of 63-99 infantry battalions over next 10-12 years.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Jun 2012 01:36

Interesting that you mentioned about 4K Milan as a stop-gap order even when it had a range problem! No such concession for the Nag, which is a 3rd gen missile, which can take out pretty much any tank out there. Recall that the IA wanted a 2nd trial in 2011 because the 2010 trial tested a minimum range of 800m, while IA wanted a min range of 500m. Then came the Namica episode. All this for a paltry order of 443 Nags