Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Oct 2013 00:53

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 882453.cms

NEW DELHI: India has developed a new tactical surface-to-surface missile 'Pragati' with a range between 60-170 km and will offer it to friendly countries.

The new missile, now on display at a defence exhibition in South Korea, is based on the Prahaar missile developed by the DRDO for the Army and can be termed as its export variant with minor differences, a DRDO official said today.

The government has approved that it may be offered to friendly countries if anyone shows interest in it, he said.

The missile is the main exhibit of the DRDO which is showcasing an array of indigenous weapons at the Seoul International Aerospace and Defense Exhibition (ADEX 2013).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2013 02:54

I agree with keeping the early Prithivis in service.The IN still hasn't abandoned its later models of the Styx anti-ship missiles.Even the Rajputs modified with the BMos 8-cell package,still have the Styx missiles on inclined launchers,+ 2X2 inclined BMos as well,a total of 14 anti-ship missiles on just one DDG.Every missile that ha shelf life in it is a valuable resource.One point,as mentioned in other tds.,the range of BMos ,which has av.high CEP,can be extended by using a smaller warhead should the need arise,upto 500km.If only some quick decision making takes place reg. the arty. needs,the IA will have a very formidable cocktail of firepower in hand.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Oct 2013 06:12

^^^ was under the impression that Rajput class was totally with brahmos. 8 inclines launchers. No styx on the ship any more.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Oct 2013 13:27

i wonder if in our 'hood, the styx still has some utility? i can't imagine that the TSPN can fully defeat a styx attack - particularly if it is in some numbers

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2013 14:56

Thing is those missiles are probably approaching end of structural limits, plus maintenance would be a pain.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Oct 2013 15:19

Bheeshma wrote:Why do we need Prithvi-2/3 anymore? Brahmos fills the above mentioned role and Shaurya will be enough for anything above that. Prithvi is best used for exports and testing purposes.

That one ton payload of the Prithvi probably cannot be beat by anything else in a similar range. One ton payload provides a lot of flexibility in terms of warhead types.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Oct 2013 15:31

they even had a FAE for prithvi IIRC.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2013 15:36

I should prolly upload a pic of the prithvi warheads, have it someplace..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Oct 2013 22:15

Hmmm, so this time they show the system on a Tatra 12X12.

While the Akash has been show cased in the IAF's Tata based tractor trawler.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2013 01:29

Wow - just wow. The paint & color combos are superb. Hats off. Such a public and visually impressive display of our kit is very important for sending out the right message for exports and JVs both. Good show DRDO and all their partners who pulled this off.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 31 Oct 2013 02:09

merlin wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:Why do we need Prithvi-2/3 anymore? Brahmos fills the above mentioned role and Shaurya will be enough for anything above that. Prithvi is best used for exports and testing purposes.
That one ton payload of the Prithvi probably cannot be beat by anything else in a similar range. One ton payload provides a lot of flexibility in terms of warhead types.

6 Prahaars and 3 Brahmos will carry the same 1 tonne payload with greater accuracy and stealth.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 31 Oct 2013 10:53

The good point is India is finally over the hump in missile design. India has mastered the guidance and solid fuel technology.

The operational success will come from containerized, mobile solid fuel missiles that can be launched quickly after order is received.

However the nuclear part is still quite doubtful. The bombs are made by civilian agency in India. The bombs and missiles are stored separately.
There has been reports that even physics package (the radioactive part) is kept separate from rest of the warhead. There were issues related to accidental or mischievous detonation of a nuclear bomb. There are multiple safeguards that need to be built in the bomb itself.

So it is a long logistics after an order is given:

1. The physics package and rest of the bomb have to be taken to an 'assembly' place to mate them together.
2. The complete bomb is to be taken to the place of missile storage.
3. The missile is then taken to its firing location or is put on the move for safety reasons.

Each of the above three is quite problematic in a situation when India has been attacked and millions have died. Enemy is sure to attack India's arsenal too. So the confidence in this longish procedure cannot be obtained with any viable percentage.

The only sure-shot way of punishing the enemy is to have ready missiles with warheads. The command system need to be built with adequate safety, like entry of codes which are given only with firing authority. The bomb should be made in such a way that warhead does not detonate without the code, even if its conventional explosives detonate. It is necessary to deploy silo based missiles due to simplicity of command and control, as well as safety of the missile itself. Movement of ballistic missiles over roads is a challenge. A component can be rail mobile missiles. Rail coaches are large enough that a concealed TEL can be made that looks like an ordinary passenger coach from outside. Such train based missiles can use very extensive Indian railway system to move around thus ensuring their safety in wartime.

A road-mobile missile will be more difficult to conceal from active aircraft based and satellite based surveillance. The large TELs can use only a very small percentage of the road network; and India's road network suffers from congestion and traffic management problems.

The submarine is not a solution to safety of nuclear missiles. While it is desirable to build SSBNs, one must not assume SSBNs will be safe from enemy. A small force becomes vulnerable very easily as enemy can track each asset. So the platform itself becomes susceptible to attack. Land based silo and mobile missiles will better meet India's requirements.

There are many articles and books written on India's nuclear force, and there is no author out there who is without doubts. India has to go a long way to achieve a 'credible deterrent capability', as the elements to achieve that are still being put into place. If a war occurs in very near future, the public may be shocked to find an India unable to respond in kind to a nuclear attack; and not because of scientists who have already delivered both bomb and missile; but the managers entrusted with security of this country.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2013 12:29

Wrong thread.. there should be a deterrence one you need to post this in..

Coming to this:

"The good point is India is finally over the hump in missile design. India has mastered the guidance and solid fuel technology."

I'd say we still have some ways to go in developing common modular building blocks that can be leveraged amongst different programs. That would reduce development time and also allow us to quickly configure designs for different applications. One area where we need many more breakthroughs in is surface attack sensor development. Good part is that DRDO has is working on both these areas.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 31 Oct 2013 16:46

Bheeshma wrote:
merlin wrote: That one ton payload of the Prithvi probably cannot be beat by anything else in a similar range. One ton payload provides a lot of flexibility in terms of warhead types.

6 Prahaars and 3 Brahmos will carry the same 1 tonne payload with greater accuracy and stealth.

Perhaps but then that is 9 missiles to do the job of 1 Prithvi assuming one ton of payload is what is needed to defeat the target. And if that one ton payload is indivisible then the 9 missiles won't help.

I doubt they are significantly more accurate.

John · Post by **John** » 31 Oct 2013 19:57

Bheeshma wrote:
6 Prahaars and 3 Brahmos will carry the same 1 tonne payload with greater accuracy and stealth.

Well it's not the same, Prithvi has much higher terminal velocity than either missile. Along with the fact Brahmos costs 3mill+ which is about as much as a Prithvi though Prahaar should be much cheaper than that.

vic · Post by **vic** » 31 Oct 2013 21:53

I think Brahmos is USD 6 million dollars and Prithvi has a very long and costly logistical tail. Therefore my guess is for cost of one Brahmos we can get 30-40 Prahaars and similarly for cost of one Prithvi + logistical tail we can get 10-20 Prahaars.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Nov 2013 00:41

Karan M wrote:
abhik wrote: If you are talking about the number of missiles in a TEL then i think it is 3 not 4.
It's 4.. there are other pics as well.

All the pics I have seen, the TEL carries only 3. For example NDTV's story @3:09

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Nov 2013 02:06

Thanks, that is a great video except for the awful irritating music (but the footage more than makes up for that). Yes, 3 missiles on the TEL, you are right. But the model that I was originally referring to at Defexpo did have some other angles which showed (as I remember) 4 missiles.. eitherways, this TEL (the actual, not the model) definitely has only 3 missiles. Shades of Brahmos!!

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Nov 2013 02:24

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.

...

rohitvats wrote:
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.

Karan, good deduction on the numbers ordered by the IA. I had done calculations a few years ago and had come up with either 12 batteries or 24 batteries based on the reports that the IA order was bigger, hints at IA "Akash regiment" being equivalent to 4 or 5 IAF Akash squadrons, and possible replacement for the 2 SA-6 Groups. But 12 batteries divided into two regiments sound about right and the numbers provided by Tarmak validate that.

With regards to the two SA-6 groups, SIPRI reports that there were 25 systems ordered in the late 1970s. This would mean around 12 "SA-6 systems" per group. Given what Rohit has pointed out, it is likely the SA-6 will be kept around to still serve the two Strike Corps they are assigned to. It makes me think that the two new Akash regiments ("equivalent to one SA-6 Group"?) could be assigned to the 3rd Strike Corps?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Nov 2013 05:25

Karan M wrote:Thanks, that is a great video except for the awful irritating music (but the footage more than makes up for that). Yes, 3 missiles on the TEL, you are right. But the model that I was originally referring to at Defexpo did have some other angles which showed (as I remember) 4 missiles.. eitherways, this TEL (the actual, not the model) definitely has only 3 missiles. Shades of Brahmos!!

Speaking of this?

Click for larger resolution

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 01 Nov 2013 08:31

Interestingly nearly all the indian missiles have lengths to potentially sit inside a car transport trailer.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 01 Nov 2013 09:55

Karan M wrote:If you have a large stockpile of Prithvis, plus infra to maintain them why waste all of that? Plus its not like we can build enough missiles overnight to replace them either.

They can always replace older Prithvi missiles with new Prithvi missiles. Each missile has a certain life. The carrier, control & command vehicles etc can be re-used.

The missile force requires significant maintenance. It is applicable to all missiles, even solid fuelled ones.

I have heard that latest Prithvi-2 missile has a range upto 350 km. If it is true, then this missile can cover most of Pakistani military targets from safe bases in Punjab and Rajasthan. This increases missile's utility significantly.

Earlier the range problem was due to accuracy as INS had a 0.1% error margin. Things may have changed as they have added GPS (I think GLONASS based system) to the missiles. The current missile may have an accuracy of 40m at 350 km range.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 01 Nov 2013 10:08

pushkar.bhat wrote:Interestingly nearly all the indian missiles have lengths to potentially sit inside a car transport trailer.

Missiles CANNOT be carried in a car carrier.

People make wild guesses due to not knowing technical parameters of ballistic missiles.

The liquid fuelled missiles are mobile only till fuelled. Once fuelled, the mobility ceases.

The solid fuelled missiles are mobile, but need certain environmental parameters for storage and movement. You will need good suspension and good roads otherwise you will damage the missile itself. Rail mobility is preferred for large missiles due to rail's higher load capacity, greater vehicle width (10 ft on rail compared to 8ft on road), and longer carriages on rail.

Canistered missiles are better for road mobility, as it reduces chances of damage in transit.

Best are silo based missiles, which can be liquid or solid fuelled as needed. The missiles are in very strong and safe silo, so are protected from elements, road hazards etc.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 01 Nov 2013 17:09

Garg wrote:
pushkar.bhat wrote:Interestingly nearly all the indian missiles have lengths to potentially sit inside a car transport trailer.
Missiles CANNOT be carried in a car carrier.

People make wild guesses due to not knowing technical parameters of ballistic missiles.

The liquid fuelled missiles are mobile only till fuelled. Once fuelled, the mobility ceases.

The solid fuelled missiles are mobile, but need certain environmental parameters for storage and movement. You will need good suspension and good roads otherwise you will damage the missile itself. Rail mobility is preferred for large missiles due to rail's higher load capacity, greater vehicle width (10 ft on rail compared to 8ft on road), and longer carriages on rail.

Canistered missiles are better for road mobility, as it reduces chances of damage in transit.

Best are silo based missiles, which can be liquid or solid fuelled as needed. The missiles are in very strong and safe silo, so are protected from elements, road hazards etc.

Thanks Garg. I understand and appreciate the valid points that you make. I was just commenting on the length of the ladoo delivery vehicle. Nearly all of them are less then or equal to 20 M.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Nov 2013 19:25

Garg wrote:
Karan M wrote:If you have a large stockpile of Prithvis, plus infra to maintain them why waste all of that? Plus its not like we can build enough missiles overnight to replace them either.
They can always replace older Prithvi missiles with new Prithvi missiles. Each missile has a certain life. The carrier, control & command vehicles etc can be re-used.

The missile force requires significant maintenance. It is applicable to all missiles, even solid fuelled ones.

Here, they are doing something simpler.. they are rebuilding the earlier ones to the longer range standard.

I have heard that latest Prithvi-2 missile has a range upto 350 km. If it is true, then this missile can cover most of Pakistani military targets from safe bases in Punjab and Rajasthan. This increases missile's utility significantly.

The Dhanush has a range of upto 350 km with larger fuel tanks. Don't know if the payload was reduced. IAF, Prithvi 2 has 250km range with payload halved to 500kg over Prithvi-1's 1 Ton (150km range).

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 01 Nov 2013 19:34

N-capable Agni I trial next week
By Hemant Kumar Rout
http://newindianexpress.com/states/odis ... 865838.ece

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 01 Nov 2013 20:13

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If weather favours, the test will be conducted on November 7,” a defence scientist, associated with the programme, said.

Should we not test some missiles in rough weather condition to check for stress test ? I find this requirement very important . Also
there are hardly any news of night launches which is again important . Strange
Why test missiles only under ideal conditions

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 02 Nov 2013 07:21

Since we have spare Prithvis, can they use them for gliding experiments from high altitude, below is an X-15 which was manned though that typically took flights from altitudes above 80km. Prithvi's would need modifications such as a new ablative wing and a landing gear. These could be a prelude to the TSTO flights like it has served the BMD program.

X-15

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2013 10:41

dhiraj wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If weather favours, the test will be conducted on November 7,” a defence scientist, associated with the programme, said.
Should we not test some missiles in rough weather condition to check for stress test ? I find this requirement very important . Also
there are hardly any news of night launches which is again important . Strange
Why test missiles only under ideal conditions

Telemetry. You want to know exactly what happened and how, in case something goes wrong.

Re: night/bad weather..missiles will be hardened anyhow for launch in most conditions, and users will have SOP likewise. During user trials/regular user tests, such tests would take place anyhow.

shan · Post by **shan** » 02 Nov 2013 16:21

The solid fuelled missiles are mobile, but need certain environmental parameters for storage and movement. You will need good suspension and good roads otherwise you will damage the missile itself. Rail mobility is preferred for large missiles due to rail's higher load capacity, greater vehicle width (10 ft on rail compared to 8ft on road), and longer carriages on rail.

Hope here you are referring to mobility of a non canisterised sold fueled missile. May be the above mentioned aspect is well known, but still how is mobility of these missiles much different from a canisterised ones. All i know, a canister protects the missile from the enviorment but how does it protects from shock and vibration of off road motion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Nov 2013 18:34

the type of TELAR also counts. the most basic will be the typical semi trailer engine hauling a missile trailer with similar road wheels. the agni tel and df31 tel are of this type. these will work only on smooth roads and suspension is not great to absorb the shocks...throw in our speedbreakers which shake truck chassis end to end. all the AGNI series are on this type.

the tatra trucks we use have some independent half suspension for each wheel iirc, and better than the solid axles of the above - brahmos, pinaka, nirbhay, prahaar, prithvi. these can drive on rough village roads and over the sand
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... -qKtaiD62p

the upper end of the scale are the kinds that can go in deep mud and snow carrying the heaviest of loads. the smerch and topol-M type trucks. ideally the agni series should move to these for a softer ride and better off road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzB7ksdFNXo

just the sight of that truck moving around brings a lump to my throat *sniff sniff* sweet...judgement day...graceful white pillars of smoke rising from the green forest.....clear water flowing over the rocks on the shallow river...life is like melting snow....

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Nov 2013 17:58

Singha, that kanwa link has a trojan.

[Singha: I have deleted the link now]

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 03 Nov 2013 18:01

Jtull, how do you locate that it has trojan. What free software can one load to detect this?

shan · Post by **shan** » 04 Nov 2013 07:39

A bit of googling on the subject of canisterisation of missile threw up the below patent filed in US.

http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7665395

Any lateral movement of the missile relative to the inner side of the casing could impact the structural stability of the missile. Considering that the above patent was filed in 2006, the issue may not really be that simple. Guess heavier the missile more the difficulty encountered in preventing any damage to the missile due to this lateral movement. Read somewhere that Minuteman was initially supposed to be a mobile missile but somehow US could'nt get it working. Might be one reason why it was considerable smaller than Atlas or Titan.

Reading through patent indicate that the off road mobilty of a missile may not be related to it being a canister missile. A missile sealed in a canister give many advantage but off road mobilty doesn't seems to one of them. Everything remaining same, a non canister missile should have as much capability for resistance to shock and vibration as the one in canister. But it would be another matter if the elements are too harsh or other external factors come into play ie: say chance of hitting tree branches while moving through a dirt track in some god knows where part of the country. If such are the operating conditions then canisters does offer lots of advantage.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 04 Nov 2013 13:08

fanne wrote:Jtull, how do you locate that it has trojan. What free software can one load to detect this?

Kaspersky told me.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2013 23:18

dhiraj wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If weather favours, the test will be conducted on November 7,” a defence scientist, associated with the programme, said.
Should we not test some missiles in rough weather condition to check for stress test ? I find this requirement very important . Also
there are hardly any news of night launches which is again important . Strange
Why test missiles only under ideal conditions

The clear weather test will give the nominal perofrmance. All the rest of reserve capability will be for margin.
Usually they will do a Monte Carlo of the severe weather on the nominal case to see how much of the deployed assets in one area(eg regiment of Agonies) will endure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Nov 2013 23:43

On Difference between converting a ICBM into a SLBM , here is from experience of a 800lb gorilla in that domain.

The Moscow-based MITT was given the contract (for development of Bulava) in spite of its lack of experience in the area
of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (before the Bulava project, MITT worked solely on
ground-based missiles). The argument was that the RS-12M1/2 Topol-M‘s conversion into an
SLBM was relatively easy which should have reduced the missile‘s production costs.
However, when Topol specialists learned that a submarine-launched missile had to
launch while the nuclear submarine is moving, they grabbed their heads.It turned out that
the technical differences between a ground-based missile and a missile launched from a
submarine were quite important. This was later confirmed by acknowledging that the
Bulava‘s design has 70 percent in common with that of the Topol-M.

shan · Post by **shan** » 05 Nov 2013 08:28

negi wrote:
However, when Topol specialists learned that a submarine-launched missile had to
launch while the nuclear submarine is moving, they grabbed their heads.It turned out that
the technical differences between a ground-based missile and a missile launched from a
submarine were quite important. This was later confirmed by acknowledging that the
Bulava‘s design has 70 percent in common with that of the Topol-M.

What special benefit would launching a SLBM from a moving submarine offer to Russians. One possibility is the tactical surprise that this offers in case its been tailed. A submarine stopping might mean an signal for possible launch preparation. This additional warning time could possibly be eliminated by launching on the move.

bulava has been test fired at least once from a moving typhoon.

Source
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/3m14.htm

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Nov 2013 08:58

its their JSF project.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 05 Nov 2013 09:02

Wouldn't the main idea of firing while moving be to get away from the point where the missile breaks surface as soon as possible? Missile defence satellites will detect that point and attack submarines will go hunting around that point.