Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[Philip]

Tx Indranil.Much relieved with your assurance! Now about the "riveting" idea of keeping the missile firmly below mach 1.Guess what the speed of the JSF/F-35 MK-1 series speed is?.....subsonic! AWST critique of the project saying that while "Rome was not built in a day",$50 billion spent on the programme doesn't mean it can wait indefinitely for success.The JSF is going to be inducted in tranches,subsonic T-1,T-2,etc.

This brings to mind two points for debate.
Point 1:

According to posted excerpts from US pilots,our MIG-21 Bisons were practically "invisible" to US F-15s and F-16s in jt. exercises.As Shiv and I many years ago said,perhaps the best replacement for the MIG-21 is the ....MIG-21 itself! Just for kicks,what would be the cost of reopening the MIG-21 Bison line? After all we're still building Jags Darin-3+ whatever.

Point 2:

This throws a whole new dimension to the status and capability of our equally delayed LCA.This means that the LCA,even in its lower powered MK-1 configuration is arguably a better aircraft than the JSF F-35 MK-1! While we are not privy to classified performance data,the LCA will surely be the equal if not a better aircraft than the MIG-21,less visible given the amount of composites in it,to and is supposed to eventually carry an AESA radar with BVR missiles. The F-35 MK-1 is only going to appear in service by 2018 at the earliest,2020 according to latest OZ estimates and at today's estimates,with a depleting number of orders,a whopping cost of a min. of $130M per plane!!! Now the estimate of the LCA was given some time ago at around $25M.Even if this figure goes upto approx. $40M,we will be able to acquire between 3-5 LCAs for the price of just one JSF.The JSF again has NOT,according to official US sources, been designed to fly any better than an F-16 in a dogfight,relying entirely on its stealth and BVR missile capability.If an attacker can get through the JSF's BVR defences,it will be a turkey shoot-just like the Marianas in WW2.So even if it only appears in 2015 in MK-1 avatar,as ACM Browne has stated,we will be a good 3 years ahead of the much touted US "turkey".This also opens up a huge opportunity for exporting the LCA,not as a low cost multi-role fighter,but as the "poor man's JSF",a superb cost-effective alternative to it (marketing mantra,"3 for the price of one"),surely an exciting prospect provided we get our production quality and rate act together.

Back to the meat of the missile thread.One Q.With Shourya and Prithvi and Brahmos also in land attack variants,where will Nirbhay fit in and in how will it be integrated with our other missile groups? In terms of range,it and Shourya straddle similar range,therefore which missile would be better used for tactical strike,a ballistic or cruise missile and which would have better survivability? In the Paki context,we have several options as mentioned above.The missile has both conventional and nuclear warhead options.What is/will be the protocol for its different modes?

[member_20453]

I think Shaurya being in similar range terms is an ideal missile for tactical/conventional uses. This thing IMO is ideal for hitting high value nodes. Over the horizon radars, air defence aradr nodes and LR SAM sites, would be great to have a Anti radtion seeker. these long range nodes are too well defended for strikes using aircraft, might as well pack the Shaurya, Sagarika with CL-20 HE and sensi seekers borrowed from Brahmos and we could also have the ability to strike other critical targets such as large power stations, dams etc. Moreover, they are deployable from land and subs. I hope sagarika is installed on some destroyers/frigates as well.

Prithvi should be used for WMD strikes.

Nirbhay can be used for pretty much any type of target.

Would be nice to list the 24+ types of warheads being planned for it.

[member_20453]

Nirbhay warheads: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Standard HE, Thermobaric, Bunker Busting, Sensor Fused, Fragmentation, High Incendiary (Thermite/Napalm , Cluster Incendiary, White Phosphorus, Smoke Screening, Bomblets, Pre-Frag, Anti Runway

[Singha]

At some point nirbhay or atleast the alcm version could adopt the stealth triangular cross section shape being standard now.

[Victor]

JASSM and other low-wing designs are primarily for air launch and make up for it by reducing the wing loading (making the wings longer) to increase stability. I was referring to stub-wing missiles which are designed for triad launch--air, surface and submarine.

Due to its small size and tree top flight, Nirbhay is about as stealthy as it will get. Changing its body shape will make it a completely different missile, although giving it a liftting body design may enhance range.

[SaiK]

per that video, nirbhay circling buildings before a strike, wouldn't it need more control surfaces for the yaw and roll?

[Indranil]

per that video, nirbhay circling buildings before a strike, wouldn't it need more control surfaces for the yaw and roll?

The fins are actuated.

[Austin]

Point 1:

According to posted excerpts from US pilots,our MIG-21 Bisons were practically "invisible" to US F-15s and F-16s in jt. exercises.As Shiv and I many years ago said,perhaps the best replacement for the MIG-21 is the ....MIG-21 itself! Just for kicks,what would be the cost of reopening the MIG-21 Bison line? After all we're still building Jags Darin-3+ whatever.

In a certain tactical context yes Mig-21 Bison variant can punch hard but in an over all Air Combat scenario the F-16 and F-15 should beat the Bison convincingly in most regiem of flight performance , unless the Teen pilot is too stupid and Bison pilot too good.

Bison though good for certain role lacks persistance , less power and consequently energy to power Electronics , small radar aperture ,agility for BFM manouvering fighter like a FBW can bring to table also an aerodynamic disadvantage when faced with three gen of advancement.

Put it simply you can win few or more tactical fight depending how good the pilot is against the Teen using Bison but you cant win a war .

Point 2:

This throws a whole new dimension to the status and capability of our equally delayed LCA.This means that the LCA,even in its lower powered MK-1 configuration is arguably a better aircraft than the JSF F-35 MK-1! While we are not privy to classified performance data,the LCA will surely be the equal if not a better aircraft than the MIG-21,less visible given the amount of composites in it,to and is supposed to eventually carry an AESA radar with BVR missiles. The F-35 MK-1 is only going to appear in service by 2018 at the earliest,2020 according to latest OZ estimates and at today's estimates,with a depleting number of orders,a whopping cost of a min. of $130M per plane!!! Now the estimate of the LCA was given some time ago at around $25M.Even if this figure goes upto approx. $40M,we will be able to acquire between 3-5 LCAs for the price of just one JSF.The JSF again has NOT,according to official US sources, been designed to fly any better than an F-16 in a dogfight,relying entirely on its stealth and BVR missile capability.If an attacker can get through the JSF's BVR defences,it will be a turkey shoot-just like the Marianas in WW2.So even if it only appears in 2015 in MK-1 avatar,as ACM Browne has stated,we will be a good 3 years ahead of the much touted US "turkey".This also opens up a huge opportunity for exporting the LCA,not as a low cost multi-role fighter,but as the "poor man's JSF",a superb cost-effective alternative to it (marketing mantra,"3 for the price of one"),surely an exciting prospect provided we get our production quality and rate act together.

Philip Sir , Too many assumptions even though JSF might have it own pit falls ( and most of it has to do with how American MIC works and not the fighter problem in real sense ) it can stand and win against most 4 or 4 ++ gen fighter because of qualities like stealth , 2nd to none Situational Awareness , Excellent Radar/ECM/EW suite , far greater versatility in its design.......The disadvantage will come if it tries to enter in to a BFM/manouvering fight against 4 or 4 plus gen fighter , a smart JSF pilot would try to finish his game before that or if BVR fails and so does some early WVR shot , he may just think its better to disengage and live to fight another day. JSF will only face a tough challenge when it tries to engage a F-22 , PAK-FA but thats a different story

[Philip]

True,the LCA makes no claim to being a 5th-gen fighter,it has no smart helmet that avoids any HUDs as in 4th-gen fighters and some of the other bells and whistles of the JSF .Yet,at $160m per plane-this is the correct figure,not $130M (OZ planning 60 planes for $10B),with a limited internal weapons bay that can carry only 2 BVR missiles +2 X 1000lb JDAMs,carrying anything underwing defeats its stealth advantage whose characteristics are tailored against radars in the frontal zone mainly, a swarm of 4th gen aircraft will swiftly send it to earth.

Back to Nirbhay.Tomahawk has been used by the US mostly by the USN,fired from its subs and surface warships with devastating effect.In the Libyan War,just one US SSGN reportedly fired about 70 missiles at Libyan targets and 200+ were fired in all by US and British forces.TH also has depleted uranium warheads and a "loiter" capability to find alternative targets in an NCW scenario.WIK has a good pic of the internals of a TH shot down in the Balkans campaign,remains in a Serbian aviation museum.The US supposedly has a stockpile of around 3500 missiles of all variants worth $2.6B.A new CM-XR (cruise missile-extended range) with a 2000km range to replace it is est. to cost $3M per missile.How does NB compare?

[NRao]

a swarm of 4th gen aircraft will swiftly send it to earth

Man, some people get carried away, don't they?

Who on this earth has a "swarm"? The guys who own the JSF (granted when-it-comes) themselves are the swarm masters. The next best is some 50% less - swarm-wise.

Some imagination!!!!!

[darshhan]

But Python-5 does have a nasty bite, would be hard for any subsonic CM to survive this one.

python-5 is overkill for any subsonic cruise missile provided it is detected in time. A decent Manpad should be good enough.

[Singha]

^ manpads would find it hard to chase down and effect T-shaped or tail intercepts ... a subsonic CM is still 700kmph..not to sniff at. you need a powerful dog to run out of the yard and effect a bubble.

that HUDless concept has been the source of more pain than the JSF designers imagined in their nightmares. I believe the helmet HUD thing is still not IOC.

[Indranil]

Just noticed that Nirbhay is a low-wing design, that is, the wings are located on the lower half of the missile. This is a puzzling choice because small wings (relative to the fuselage) have an exaggerated effect on a missile and make them inherently unstable. A cruise missile is therefore already more unstable than a conventional aircraft and to maximize stability within design constraints, wings are typically located on the upper half of the fuselage or at most in the middle in almost all similar missiles and even in glide bombs. Rough aeronautical rule of thumb: wings on shoulder=stable and slow, wings under fuselage=unstable and fast. Wing dihedral also comes into play but in missiles, it is difficult to achieve. It would be interesting to know what led to this design choice.

The wing sweep must be giving it enough lateral stability.

By the way, the bolded part could not be more wrong. There are many ways of adjusting lateral stability and position of the wing is only one aspect of it.

[Anujan]

Cargo planes have shoulder mounted wings due to other reasons also. Higher ground clearance for bigger engines and landing on semi prepared runways, lack of strut protrusion into the body so entire space is available and so on.

Since the weight of cargo is more, the wings are one continuous piece and simply not riveted or welded on to the fuselage. That means it should be below the fuselage (debris will hit the engine during takeoff and landing since ground clearance is low) or above.

[James B]

[Indranil]

I first came across the animations from this group with the AMCA. They always claim that "careful attention has been paid to the minutest of details". However I have found that that the same is not the case.

1. It is based on Klub missile! ADE has been working on this for close to a decade now using the know how from Lakshya PTA.
2. Weight of Nirbhay has been quoted as 3500 kg.
3. Range: 1500- 2000 km is questionable.
4. They show the wings deployed even when powered by the booster.
5. They say it will from a TATA 12X12, yet show a 8X8 launch truck

[Sagar G]

How will that seeker know what to lock on at such long ranges? Coordinates must be given to missile before its launch.

Yes coordinates are given but after reaching the coordinate how is the missile going to find the target ??? That's where the seeker comes in and no matter whether you provide the guidance with RLG based navigation system or satellite based or both the missile won't end up at the door of it's target. There still will be some errors which have to be removed by utilizing the seeker which takes a look at the intended area where the target is thought to exist and matches what it see's with the image of the target preloaded into it. If what the seeker see's matches with the image given to it then Kaboom or else hovermode as in case of Nirbhay waiting for the opportune moment.

[Karan M]

Surprising nobody picked up on this, but a huge positive from the Nirbhay test (and the Sudarshan LSP) is clearly the fact that ADE is now emerging as a second munitions systems designer within DRDO. Something much required as it means there will now be two tactical munitions developers - DRDL and ADE, with strategic ballistic missile programs at ASL.
With ADE having picked up invaluable experience with the LCA FBW, and Nishant, Lakshya programs, the next big step they will be taking is to move fully into systems of systems design across multiple programs (instead of just a handful of programs being improved). This means further cooperation within the Bangalore based cluster of aero labs who can provide ADE systems, but also further orders for the many Bangalore based SMEs who work on everything from airframes, to actuators and avionics cards.
Two three labs working on similar, if not overlapping programs is a net positive as we need different centers of expertise to develop. Right now there are 2 labs working on similar programs for several areas in DRDO, and this has led to a huge improvement in both productivity and number of successful of programs delivered. The ADE will be working as a lead on several of the UAV programs - this is a net plus in terms of becoming the center of expertise on UAVs flight vehicle dynamics which will undoubtedly help munitions programs, and also they will work with ADA on the UCAV program.

The Nirbhay first failure is not such a big deal either, the Agni-II plus failed its initial outing in 2010. Subsequent ones were successful in 2011 and 12. The hard path traversed by other programs such as Akash and Trishul are well known. Both were subsequently mastered even though Trishul was late to entry and ended as a TD. But its worthwhile noting DRDO persisted and solved the flight vehicle 3 beam guidance challenge.
Over 2009-11, the Astra missile was also significantly redesigned and received improvements, culminating in successful tests in 2012 noted as a breakthrough for the project.
All in all, Nirbhay will enter Indian service. About the only future challenge with the program is going to be the long term availability of the engines, until & unless HAL's Laghu Shakti, or GTRE's small gas turbine is already ready (which seems unlikely).
But even an inventory of a couple of hundred missiles will be a huge step up for India.

Now for the not so good news..
Positives apart, it does seem that Dr VKS stepped on the toes of the ruling politico-bureaucrat cabal in Delhi. They typically prefer a servile yes-man, and it seems the current DRDO head did not do enough to placate them, and will hence not get a second stint. Still, his turn at the top has been a huge plus for India with multiple programs coming good & being put into production. After him Dr Pillai, and several other "old hands", it will be worth seeing who steps up from the younger group at DRDO.

[SaiK]

there should be also an on-board video (hopefully HD) sending streaming as is to satellite receivers. video based corrections and electro-optical corrections can also be used for segregating land targets. this is one area, where amrikkhans always get a nasty hit. their logic gets failed to hit wrong targets, and always blame on the INT received. The more intelligent nirbhay can be, the better would be the platform - especially video so that they can save some last minute decisions on the target. the khans have always killed wimmen & children 90% of their time from both tomahawks and the drones.

i am already seeing nirbhay's multi missions into larger areas of pakistan.

[Singha]

Dc3 dakota has a low wing and must be pretty stable...so too the german junkers transport with corrugated fuselage panels.

[shiv]

Even the Boeing 707 and EC 3 AWACS, A 380 and B 747 have low wings. I think the issue with low wings is not stability in general, but roll stability, With high mounted wings the center of mass of the aircraft lies below the wings and if the plane banks the mass acts like a pendulum and tries to steady itself by returning to center. In the case of low set wings the center of mass is above the wings and the tilt caused while banking is aggravated - like a pendulum that is held with its heavy part up.

That would make low wing aircraft more easily manoeuvrable in tight turns and high wing aircraft would probably fly more steadily and be less affected by gusts and buffeting

[Victor]

.. the issue with low wings is not stability in general, but roll stability, With high mounted wings the center of mass of the aircraft lies below the wings and if the plane banks the mass acts like a pendulum and tries to steady itself by returning to center. In the case of low set wings the center of mass is above the wings and the tilt caused while banking is aggravated - like a pendulum that is held with its heavy part up.

That would make low wing aircraft more easily manoeuvrable in tight turns and high wing aircraft would probably fly more steadily and be less affected by gusts and buffeting

Bingo. That's what I meant. Low wing planes like Dakota, 707 etc were designed for speed as they were passenger planes to begin with. STOL planes that must land in tight places are almost always shoulder wing.

Coming to Nirbhay, it is likely that the air launch requirements dictated the position of the wings as the fittings required on top would be at the exact spot that the wings whould be--the center of gravity. It is a committee design and compromises were surely made. As Singha has suggested, a dedicated air launch version with a stealth lifting body design would be great and we may yet see it when the project matures. The greater range from such a design would allow it to be smaller.

[vic]

It seems like a reverse engineered klub. If true, then it shows Very good commonsense compared to normal over reach of DRDO.

The approx cost of subsonic cruise missiles imported by India is around Rs. 4000 -8000 crores. Budget of Nirbhay Rs.40 crore only.

[Singha]

^ we may actually be working with novator on some aspects..just as with saturn. all the time floating trial balloons about the awacs killer , loitering bomber and other FUD brahmos corp is a nice vehicle to work on multiple projects under one tent for example. China has been doing it all the time.

the SDB type puppies running around these days with folding wings are mounted on pylons with the wings ulta, so it seems they execute a complete 180' roll if the wings are supposed to operate on the top during flight.

doing this on a huge 18ft long missile that is also powered could be tough
http://www.ausairpower.net/GBU/GBU-39-SDB-7.jpg

however the Taurus KEPD 360 manages to mount it right side up with the wings folding along the sides
http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/f ... rus_02.jpg

[pentaiah]

Even the Boeing 707 and EC 3 AWACS, A 380 and B 747 have low wings. I think the issue with low wings is not stability in general, but roll stability, With high mounted wings the center of mass of the aircraft lies below the wings and if the plane banks the mass acts like a pendulum and tries to steady itself by returning to center. In the case of low set wings the center of mass is above the wings and the tilt caused while banking is aggravated - like a pendulum that is held with its heavy part up.

That would make low wing aircraft more easily manoeuvrable in tight turns and high wing aircraft would probably fly more steadily and be less affected by gusts and buffeting

IIRC it's called meta centric height also used in ship design for the same stated reasons

[vic]

Wings folding inside the fuselage is a complicated design and not required for air launched or ground launched missiles. It is only required for sub-tube launched missile. But one common design will allow us to go for mass production if "the family" permits.

[Victor]

It seems like a reverse engineered klub. If true, then it shows Very good commonsense compared to normal over reach of DRDO.

I wouldn't say it is a knockoff because it can loiter unlike the Klub afaik. The general layout does show a low-risk approach which is a great sign for sure.

The approx cost of subsonic cruise missiles imported by India is around Rs. 4000 -8000 crores. Budget of Nirbhay Rs.40 crore only.

Next we will hear that MoD has ordered 41 missiles instead of 1,500. This is hardly a virtue. We need to go hammer and tong for a weapon like this and reserve the stinginess for useless stuff like VVIP helicopters and the parallel army that VVIPs have built up with uber expensive weapons to protect themselves.

[Indranil]

.. the issue with low wings is not stability in general, but roll stability, With high mounted wings the center of mass of the aircraft lies below the wings and if the plane banks the mass acts like a pendulum and tries to steady itself by returning to center. In the case of low set wings the center of mass is above the wings and the tilt caused while banking is aggravated - like a pendulum that is held with its heavy part up.

That would make low wing aircraft more easily manoeuvrable in tight turns and high wing aircraft would probably fly more steadily and be less affected by gusts and buffeting

Bingo. That's what I meant. Low wing planes like Dakota, 707 etc were designed for speed as they were passenger planes to begin with. STOL planes that must land in tight places are almost always shoulder wing.

Coming to Nirbhay, it is likely that the air launch requirements dictated the position of the wings as the fittings required on top would be at the exact spot that the wings whould be--the center of gravity. It is a committee design and compromises were surely made. As Singha has suggested, a dedicated air launch version with a stealth lifting body design would be great and we may yet see it when the project matures. The greater range from such a design would allow it to be smaller.

Shivji, Victorji,
The technical term for "roll stability" is "lateral stability". You guys are right to the point the shoulder mounted wings contribute to higher lateral stability. But your explanation of why that happens is way off. It has got nothing to do with the CG. It is because the air travelling over the "wing into the wind" (inside and lower) travels over the fuselage and hence increase the lift on the wing into the wind. Therefore it adds to the lateral stability.

But the same effect is seen by swept back wings. The amount of air travelling laterally on the wing into the wind becomes higher than the other wing. This increases the lift on wing into the wind and hence adds to the lateral stability.

Also, the lower wing with dihedral would have almost the same stability as a high wing plane. The reason for a low wing is completely different. For STOL aeroplanes they keep go for the upper mounted wing because they want to keep the engines as high as possible to minimize FOD damage. Plus most of these planes have turboprop engines with large propellers. Do you want to see what a low mounted wing with turboprops looks like.


The large cargo planes have shoulder mounted wings because they don't want the wingbox to pass through the fuselage.

[Singha]

Those low hanging props could rip anyone to shreds.must be tense job being groundcrew to such prop planes.

[Indranil]

PLEASE STOP CALLING NIRBHAY A COPY OF KLUB.

This guys have been working on that thing for a long time. A subsonic cruise missile will look like that because that's what aerodynamics dictate.

[pentaiah]

Indranilroy sir ji
This might evoke your interest

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00843.html

[SKrishna]

IR ji, Shivji ji & Victorji my two bits on the wing topic.

IRC high shoulder mounted wings has also got something to do with fact that mil cargo haulers also have rear doors. A shoulder mounted wing helps structurally such that the spine bears the load of the tail section of the fuselage and prevents buckling. Saw this on National Geographic iirc...

[Victor]

Indranil, Shiv has explained very well why the pendulum effect in aircraft with wings mounted above the CG make them more stable (or resistant to roll). In the case of Nirbhay, I am speculating on reasons why the wings are mounted below the CG given that this config increases/exaggerates the tendency to roll. Prop clearancce and fuselage space constraints are valid but extraneous points.

[pentaiah]

Basically this is how the wings deploy and lock ( just like F111swing wing or F14 or MIG 23/27 )only difference the wings on a/c can be be completely folded on launch / take off hence compound wing)
In case of Abhay or Nirbhay the wing has be be concealed in body for tube launch.

Like this they open out no?

[Philip]

NR,wargaming by Rand,etc. showed that "swarms" ,superior numbers of so-called "inferior" Flankers and other Chinese aircraft would get the better of F-22s based out of Guam,as the number of missiles carried by the Raptors would be insufficient to deal with superior numbers.The JSF carries only 2 BVR miissiles internally,in MK-1 avatar which it will emerge untiil 2020+ it is subsonic,even if supersonic has dogfighting capabilities only upto F-16 std.,(remember that it is reported that we won "10 out of 10" dogfights against SAF in exercises with our Flankers,etc.) so it would truly be "imaginative" to believe that the JSF is going to rule the skies! At 160+million per turkey-at today's prices,how many JSFs do you think will be bought by US allies or fielded in combat by them?

[NRao]

Like this they open out no?

The discussion seems to be about why is the wing at the bottom of this missile, and most others it is at the top.

[Surya]

NR,wargaming by Rand,etc. showed that "swarms" ,superior numbers of so-called "inferior" Flankers and other Chinese aircraft would get the better of F-22s based out of Guam,as the number of missiles carried by the Raptors would be insufficient to deal with superior numbers.

aha now you believe the damn yankees
when the buzz stops try and work out what it will take one of dream countries to actually launch this "swarm"?

(remember that it is reported that we won "10 out of 10" dogfights against SAF in exercises with our Flankers,etc.) so it would truly be "imaginative" to believe that the JSF is going to rule the skies!

another "50 percent of NASA folks are Indian' type of nonsense
flankers fight F 16s and you infer.....

talk to any of the guys who returned from red flag- ask them what that translates to in a real war with the khan

the Khan goes to fight with a system - a system the rest of the world for now at least is nowhere near.

you need to build your own system for the expected security threats you foresee

[Indranil]

Indranil, Shiv has explained very well why the pendulum effect in aircraft with wings mounted above the CG make them more stable (or resistant to roll). In the case of Nirbhay, I am speculating on reasons why the wings are mounted below the CG given that this config increases/exaggerates the tendency to roll. Prop clearancce and fuselage space constraints are valid but extraneous points.

Unfortunately, Shivji is wrong. An aircraft rotates about it's CG. So weight passing through the CG cannot create any moment around it. It is called pendulum motion because the aircraft oscillates about wings-leveled flight before it returns to leveled flight.

Also, the boldened statement is wrong.

[Indranil]

IR ji, Shivji ji & Victorji my two bits on the wing topic.

IRC high shoulder mounted wings has also got something to do with fact that mil cargo haulers also have rear doors. A shoulder mounted wing helps structurally such that the spine bears the load of the tail section of the fuselage and prevents buckling. Saw this on National Geographic iirc...

Yes, that is one reason.

[Indranil]

Indranilroy sir ji
This might evoke your interest

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00843.html

Thank you. But no sir/ji please.