Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 18:40

Tarmak:

The numbers of the current combined orders will definitely make any desi defence devotee proud: 2,500 missiles, 112 launchers, 28 multi-functional phased array radars (MPARs) and 100 3-D Central Acquisition Radars (3-D CARs).

AF 8 squadrons, 16 flights or 16 batteries and 16MPARs. Each flight has 4 launchers. 64 launchers. Total are 112 launchers.

So 48 launchers for the Army. 4 launchers per battery would be 12 batteries. So 2 groups/regiments of 6 batteries each. For the Army.

Easy way to validate...28 MPARs.. BLR/FLR - those should be equal to batteries above (16 IAF + 12 IA).. matches.

Now the 3D CAR numbers are amazing, if that is not a typo.

IAF has ordered 37 Rohini surveillance radars, even deducting that from this order, thats 63 3D CAR. IA expects something like 30 TCR (3D CAR derivatives). Thats still around 30 more radars!

On the other hand, since Rohini is actually a surveillance radar being procured for a replacement of the earlier medium alt radars by IAF, and similarly TCR is a more mobile, lesser range (90 km) variant.. and these are actually pure 3D CARs for Akash.. we have a whopping 170 odd unit production run for the 3D CAR and variants (including Navy).

On the other hand assuming a typo 10 Sqs - ergo 10 CARs still translates to:

10 CARS + 37 Rohinis + 28 TCR + 6 Revathi
Around 93 odd radars.. still a massive order by any means.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 18:43

BTW, there were 2 SA-6 groups for the much greater number of strike corps and holding corps. Its anybody's guess whether the IA will phase these SA-6s out and replace them with Akash, or now with CS, and IBGs, keep both around (if SA-6s are still viable, effectively doubling medium range SAM capability) and as the additional SAMs come in, they would continue to add to the inventory (replacing the SA-6s to begin with).

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 27 Oct 2013 20:07

Karan M wrote:Tarmak:

The numbers of the current combined orders will definitely make any desi defence devotee proud: 2,500 missiles, 112 launchers, 28 multi-functional phased array radars (MPARs) and 100 3-D Central Acquisition Radars (3-D CARs).
AF 8 squadrons, 16 flights or 16 batteries and 16MPARs. Each flight has 4 launchers. 64 launchers. Total are 112 launchers.

So 48 launchers for the Army. 4 launchers per battery would be 12 batteries. So 2 groups/regiments of 6 batteries each. For the Army.

Easy way to validate...28 MPARs.. BLR/FLR - those should be equal to batteries above (16 IAF + 12 IA).. matches.

Now the 3D CAR numbers are amazing, if that is not a typo.

IAF has ordered 37 Rohini surveillance radars, even deducting that from this order, thats 63 3D CAR. IA expects something like 30 TCR (3D CAR derivatives). Thats still around 30 more radars!

On the other hand, since Rohini is actually a surveillance radar being procured for a replacement of the earlier medium alt radars by IAF, and similarly TCR is a more mobile, lesser range (90 km) variant.. and these are actually pure 3D CARs for Akash.. we have a whopping 170 odd unit production run for the 3D CAR and variants (including Navy).

On the other hand assuming a typo 10 Sqs - ergo 10 CARs still translates to:

10 CARS + 37 Rohinis + 28 TCR + 6 Revathi
Around 93 odd radars.. still a massive order by any means.

thanks Karan. that matches with Ajai Shukla's report too - that i had missed and you linked for a different purpose on the army thread. he mentioned 6sq. which means 48 launchers as you calculated.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Oct 2013 20:53

Karan M wrote:BTW, there were 2 SA-6 groups for the much greater number of strike corps and holding corps. Its anybody's guess whether the IA will phase these SA-6s out and replace them with Akash, or now with CS, and IBGs, keep both around (if SA-6s are still viable, effectively doubling medium range SAM capability) and as the additional SAMs come in, they would continue to add to the inventory (replacing the SA-6s to begin with).

Karan - expect SA-6 to be moved to Pivot Corps while Akash will fill the role in Strike Corps. BTW, the Groups are 501 AD Group (SP) and 502 AD Group (SP). From what I've read, the former is with II Strike Corps while latter is with I Strike Corps.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Oct 2013 21:21

rohit how does an AD group compare to an arty regt. in terms of structure, i.e # of batteries and so on ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 00:07

Well, we can take the Akash orders as a good estimate for the AD side as well (the orders should reflect how the SA-6 units are also structured)..

RV, I think with an upgrade, the SA-6 groups can still be kept around for a while. Or at least they should be replaced with Akash-MK2. Has there been any cribbing about the SA-6 or on the other hand, any news about their modernisation? They are probably amongst the most "silent" acquisitions we have had in terms of media coverage.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 00:17

Note: This may replace the SA-8s for all we know (media reports apart)

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/army- ... es/964784/

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Oct 2013 00:36

vasu raya wrote:
karan_mc wrote:Spotted Nirbhay Launcher , When is the Second test ?

This monster won't fit in the C-17 cargo hold, and they should do something about those huge boxes, even the foot print of a basic UAV like Nishant has 12 vehicles per wiki.

Yes, those equipment boxes show no sign of volume optimization. Also, I doubt the equipment is optimized for power consumption. In the event of a war, if the systems must remain online and ready to launch, I wonder how much time it would take to use up all the fuel for powering the generator that runs all that.

I hope this is only the first version of the Nirbhay launcher, with more work to be done on it. In contrast, the Tomahawk Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) launcher ~~is perhaps just as long but~~ appears to be both shorter in length and far more volume optimized. The launcher also carries 4 missiles instead of 3.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/24/rrh2.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 01:02

Depends on what is within those boxes. There appears to be a door on one of the indian missile TEL "boxes", if that is an operator cabin, then that implies that it has its own controls setup and can sustain a level of autonomous ops.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 01:17

Pic Source btw is DRDO: http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/RDE%28E%29 ... chieve.jsp

Now to see those boxes closely..(mislabeled as prahar here)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4ZsHXWsa360/T ... rahar1.jpg

Compare with Brahmos
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/thu ... ptions.jpg

Prahaar
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MWY3ecKLzkk/T ... C_0171.jpg

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Oct 2013 01:20

Karan ji, thank you for the additional image links. While I note your use of the detail "a level of" for the autonomous ops, how autonomous can you be in firing a missile that travels a 1000 km when none of your local sensors can see that far and when any operation over that range is more strategic in nature than tactical? The choice of what to attack, when to attack and how to attack (path to target) would have to come from the command center, wouldn't it?

If I'm on the right track then all that is required really is the ability to receive a set of waypoints and the instruction to launch, which implies a vulnerability to communications jamming but without communications with the command center, I doubt any operator will be empowered to launch a missile to hit something a 1000 km away.

In that sense, I think the Prahaar launcher you pointed to is the best design.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 01:57

I mean the launcher may have its own fire control system that enables a limited amount of mission planning, data reception from a third party system and then upload the relevant waypoint data into the INS/Navattack system of the missile. It may not be able to coordinate multiple launchers or do higher level mission planning, which would be the job of the C4I command vehicle.

That way each Nirbhay launcher in effect has a level of autonomy, because otherwise if you take out a C4I command vehicle, you lose the entire battery.

Note, for a similar comparison, Brahmos launcher is called "MAL - Mobile Autonomous Launcher".

The main role of MCP is planning the mission identification of suitable Mobile Autonomous Launcher (MAL) for effective neutralization of target and issue of launch order to MALs, secure and reliable communication with the connected entities, data recording and analysis.

To meet the above requirements it has three workstations for each role which are meant for GIS based planning mission, Command control system for identification of suitable launcher, issue of launch order to MALs and communication with the connected entities.

The Mobile Autonomous Launcher (MAL) is capable of receiving the target information from Mobile Command Post (MCP) and provides an interface to the Fire Control System. MAL is realized in a NBC and EMI / EMC protected self-contained shelter on a TATRA 12x12 vehicle. This facilitates firing of missiles against targets.

http://www.ecil.co.in/proverviewe3d9.ht ... vd=4&pd=53

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Oct 2013 02:03

Karan ji, I stand corrected. That Tomahawk GLCM TEL does not operate by itself. It is supported by the LCC vehicle, actually two of them for redundancy:

http://imageshack.us/a/img197/7654/2uid.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/6491/ldfs.jpg

If the Nirbhay launcher combines both functions, which it does appear to, I suppose the compromise in manoeuvrability was considered by the designers to be acceptable.

John · Post by **John** » 28 Oct 2013 02:07

Also aren't GLCM hot launched? where as Nirbhay i believe uses cold launch mechanism and is housed in canister. That would add additional weight and size to the system. For example the canister for Brahmos weights around 800 kg.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 02:27

Thanks Pratik, interesting info.

John, Nirbhay test showed a hot launch ....I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glbNrVXzArQ

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2013 02:41

Nirbhay is hot launched look at that launcher it is essentially a truss structure and not a canister. There is no place to trap gases for the cold launch.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2013 02:49

--wrong thread

--

John · Post by **John** » 28 Oct 2013 03:08

negi wrote:Nirbhay is hot launched look at that launcher it is essentially a truss structure and not a canister. There is no place to trap gases for the cold launch.

It is essentially a pressurized canister i thought the 2nd launch was supposed to be test in that configuration? Perhaps i misread it. If so it would allows us to easy to fit Nirbhay into existing Brahmos Universal Vertical launchers.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2013 03:12

^ I think if Nirbhay is moved to Subs then we will have a need for it to be cold launched .

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 03:36

negi wrote:Nirbhay is hot launched look at that launcher it is essentially a truss structure and not a canister. There is no place to trap gases for the cold launch.

Exactly, I was wondering if there is some other launcher I missed..
However, if the Nirbhay has to be properly TEL'ed and deployed, I think they will move away from the truss structure to a canister one.. otherwise the missile is exposed. Ditto for Prahaar.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 03:41

So SS-150s will become SS-250s & there will be more Prahaars inducted. Guess more missile groups will be raised!

The entire article is worth a read.

http://defense-update.com/20130701_prah ... ivthi.html

India plans to withdraw the Prithvi I tactical ballistic missile from active service, replacing it with the more advanced, solid-propelled Prahar. According to the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, “We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy.” According to Chander, the Prithvi I missiles withdrawn from service would be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said. Defense-Update reports. Prithvi I (also known as SS150) was the first tactical ballistic missile inducted into service by the Indian military.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Oct 2013 07:28

Interesting observations Pratikdas, Karan M et al., so eventually the trusses would be replaced by canisters. Even Shaurya was shown with a truss launch however the launcher at a exhibition showed a canister.

From this picture posted by Karan M,

When the launch tubes are moved to vertical position, the boxes seem to act as a counter weight (not a dead weight) in the absence of the tractor, why would they want the tractor to leave? is it because of Nirbhay's range its relatively safe unlike the Brahmos TEL

The IAF's Akash launcher was a similar tractor trailer with no boxes since the Akash doesn't need a counter weight.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2013 07:48

^ Just curious where is it mentioned that tractor will leave during the time of the launch ?

Also I am not aware of Shourya launcher with a truss only structure , even during it;s first test firing it was cold launched from a silo surrounded by a truss cage.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=shour ... B300%3B400

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 07:56

vasu raya wrote:Interesting observations Pratikdas, Karan M et al., so eventually the trusses would be replaced by canisters. Even Shaurya was shown with a truss launch however the launcher at a exhibition showed a canister.

I would presume a canister, because otherwise there is no way to protect the missile from the elements. On the other hand, Akash is carried openly and even goes through a heavy rain test whilst exposed on the TEL, but its an exception (IMHO) to the rule.

From this picture posted by Karan M,

When the launch tubes are moved to vertical position, the boxes seem to act as a counter weight (not a dead weight) in the absence of the tractor, why would they want the tractor to leave? is it because of Nirbhay's range its relatively safe unlike the Brahmos TEL

The IAF's Akash launcher was a similar tractor trailer with no boxes since the Akash doesn't need a counter weight.

They dont want the tractor to leave ... that display piece by the L&T/TATA folks (whosoever's display that was) just shows the part they built which is to be integrated on the tractor.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 07:57

Ah Shourya, now that is another thing I had forgotten totally about. Wonder whether that has been ordered yet by the IA/IAF? Chander in an interview called it a depressed trajectory missile.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Oct 2013 08:00

In the above picture there is no tractor, it doesn't mean it will leave at the time of launch, it is not required to be around. This was around the time of Tatra issue maybe, domestic option was a tractor trailer, the connector from the tractor to the trailer is the fifth wheel which I believe takes downwards loads and not upwards which would happen with the tubes going vertical

my bad on the Shaurya, they should have had a truck launch video.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 08:04

Hmm... even Pinaka is an open design, so I guess DRDO is prepared for their systems to be weather proof.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 707163.JPG

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 08:08

vasu raya wrote:In the above picture there is no tractor, it doesn't mean it will leave at the time of launch, it is not required to be around. This was around the time of Tatra issue maybe, domestic option was a tractor trailer, the connector from the tractor to the trailer is the fifth wheel which I believe takes downwards loads and not upwards which would happen with the tubes going vertical

my bad on the Shaurya, they should have had a truck launch video.

There is no tractor because the people who own that display don't handle that part of the build. They are displaying what they do.
Nobody is going to unhitch the missile system from the truck when the entire point of the truck is that it adds the crucial survivability factor, ie mobility.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Oct 2013 08:14

karan_mc wrote:Spotted Nirbhay Launcher , When is the Second test ?

There are more nirbhaya's on that launcher, isn't it?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 08:17

A total of 4.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Oct 2013 08:19

Akash mk2 might be canistered and then with Pinaka wouldn't the exposed trusses show up on ISTAR craft a bit too easily? not to mention you may want export looks for it

mobility is great, the current gripe is about fitting the tractor-trailer in a C-17

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2013 08:26

We dont know the MK2 has canisters yet, do we?
Trusses or not, unless you cover the whole missile TEL with a RF cammo cloth, it will show up bigtime on radar.
Now even if you unhitch and fit into a C17, getting it out will be a pain.

Easier to just put Nirbhays on fighters which anyways is the plan.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Oct 2013 08:32

Chander saab says all future missiles will be canistered, maybe he was setting the expectations

RF camo clothing can survive heat or missile plume?

the TATRA chassis should have been reverse engineered by now by the 'IA folks' or by BEML, its compact

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Oct 2013 09:46

PratikDas wrote:If the Nirbhay launcher combines both functions, which it does appear to, I suppose the compromise in manoeuvrability was considered by the designers to be acceptable.

Brahmos range is ~ 300 km, in many cases it is only 100+ km. So to reach the target, the launcher must be placed closer and needs to negotiate the terrain to do so. For that the launcher vehicle needs "manoeuverability" to negotiate the terrain ahead.

OTOH, Nirbhay is a ~ 1000 km missile. So the launcher doesn't need all such "manoeuverability" as that of Brahmos.

Unlike Brahmos Fire & Forget type, Nirbhay is a loitering subsonic missile with the ability to pick and chose targets. So the launcher and C&C comes with attendant tasks.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 28 Oct 2013 09:54

Karan M wrote:So SS-150s will become SS-250s & there will be more Prahaars inducted. Guess more missile groups will be raised!

The entire article is worth a read.

http://defense-update.com/20130701_prah ... ivthi.html

India plans to withdraw the Prithvi I tactical ballistic missile from active service, replacing it with the more advanced, solid-propelled Prahar. According to the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, “We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy.” According to Chander, the Prithvi I missiles withdrawn from service would be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said. Defense-Update reports. Prithvi I (also known as SS150) was the first tactical ballistic missile inducted into service by the Indian military.

yes. this was reported in HT too. i speculated on the basis of it here -

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1522972

wig · Post by **wig** » 28 Oct 2013 09:59

DRDO laboratory in Chandigarh will develop advanced electronic fuses for various munitions

In a radical departure from conventional mechanical fuses for various kinds of service ordnance and warheads, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing advanced electronic fuses for enhancing the lethality, safety, commonality and reliability of munitions.

The fuse is a very critical sub-system of ammunition and warheads which make them function at the right place and at the right time after launch. At the same time, it keeps them safe while in storage, handling or transportation.

Conventional fuses are mostly mechanical and pyrotechnic-based and their designs are based on chemical delays. Primary explosive-based initiators have inherent issues of inconsistency and safety due to their high sensitivity to heat, shock, friction and humidity and are susceptible to ageing. Consequently, there are associated reliability and safety issues. Moreover, conventional fuses are heavy, bigger in size and costly.

Advanced electronic fuses based on highly accurate and precise electronic timers and micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based sensors and initiators will not only enhance safety, accuracy and reliability but also be cheaper than their older-generation counterparts.

It is estimated that about five million such fuses will be required in the next five years by the Indian armed forces.

The project is being undertaken by DRDO’s Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) at Chandigarh in collaboration with academia and industries.

TBRL Director Dr Manjit Singh said that the project is highly challenging in which many critical technologies like shock-mitigating materials, MEMS sensors capable of sustaining hyper acceleration, mini and micro detonators, secondary explosive-based initiators, ultra high energy density power sources etc would have to be developed in the next two to three years.

A comprehensive roadmap to achieve the goals in the given time frame has been chalked out and a dedicated team of about 20 scientists is working exclusively on this programme under project director Pravendra Kumar.

Dr Manjit Singh added that the adoption of these new technologies would not only enhance the safety but also increase the reliability due to reduction in the number of moving parts required for arming the fuse.

Why the change
•Conventional fuses are mostly mechanical and pyrotechnic-based and their designs are based on chemical delays
•Primary explosive-based initiators have inherent issues of inconsistency and safety due to their high sensitivity to heat, shock, friction and humidity. These are susceptible to ageing
•Conventional fuses are heavy, bigger in size and costly

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131028/nation.htm#7

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 28 Oct 2013 10:07

Prahaar was in canisters when it was first displayed in Def Expo. Each truck carried 6 missiles

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 28 Oct 2013 10:19

Karan M wrote:Hmm... even Pinaka is an open design, so I guess DRDO is prepared for their systems to be weather proof.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 707163.JPG

This launcher was designed by some private company. L&T or Godrej IIRC

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Oct 2013 10:38

Karan M wrote:A total of 4.

They might be dummies.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 28 Oct 2013 11:03

Rahul M wrote:rohit how does an AD group compare to an arty regt. in terms of structure, i.e # of batteries and so on ?

They are both fairly similar,due to their shared heritage. Only at the Battery level do differences crop up, where while a Med Arty Bty will have 2 Gun Troops(each with 3 Med Guns) a AD Regt will have 3 Gun Troops(each with 2 AD Guns). AD units will also not have a FOO(Forward Observation Officer) Party.

Air Defence Regts can also be composite in nature, where their weapons differ battery to battery due to their role on the battlefield.