Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Mar 2015 20:47

negi wrote:Shiv sir to bluntly answer your question in event of a IFF module, VHF and UHF radio failure there is no way our AC can be identified as friendly when they are detected say at 200-300 km slant range. At that range there is no way one can distinguish between say a Mig-21 and a Bundar for both have similar RCS . In this case we will have no choice but to send in our interceptors and visually identify the targets , however as I said before on modern platforms like Tejas we have redundancies built for such key modules so probability of all of them going down at the same time is very low.

Hey speaking of which if all the above have failed can an incoming AC use it's Radar for sending in a signal ? Say something on the lines of a Morse code ? Technically it is not too hard or is it ? All you need is to send in a train of pulses of constant magnitude but with two distinct pulse widths .

The radar can be detected by an ESM suite nd tagged as representative of correct AC type. Luckily we and PAF/ PLAAF dont operate any common items like radars.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 27 Mar 2015 22:09

.

see the photos of Yemeni S 125 destroyed by Saudi Airforce

Twitter Link

The S 125 is the IAF's first layer SAM. I think nowadays it's easy to spoofing Russian AD Batteries

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Mar 2015 22:13

SajeevJino wrote:.

see the photos of Yemeni S 125 destroyed by Saudi Airforce

Twitter Link

The S 125 is the IAF's first layer SAM. I think nowadays it's easy to spoofing Russian AD Batteries

They are getting replaced with LRSAM and Akash.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Mar 2015 22:15

SajeevJino wrote:.

see the photos of Yemeni S 125 destroyed by Saudi Airforce

Twitter Link

The S 125 is the IAF's first layer SAM. I think nowadays it's easy to spoofing Russian AD Batteries

You need competent and motivated operators with high morale. Personally I doubt that rebel controlled Yemen would have highly willing and competent operators for the air-defenses or the Mig-29's.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Mar 2015 22:24

Those where not even in operation and as saddam found out in 2nd GW. You are more likely kill more on the ground than your enemies when you fire outdated SAMs.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Mar 2015 06:33

Finally, Army to get Akash missiles from next month

Defence ministry sources said Manohar Parrikar is slated to symbolically hand over the first Akash - the surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) fired from mobile launchers with powerful multi-function radars to evaluate and track threats -- to the Army in early-April.

The Army has initially ordered two Akash regiments, with six firing batteries and hundreds of missiles each, for around Rs 14,180 crore. "The first full regiment should be ready by June-July, with the second one following by end-2016," said a source.

IAF has already begun to deploy six Akash missile squadrons in the north-east to counter China's build-up of military infrastructure all along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control (LAC), which includes eight fully-operational airbases in Tibet.

IAF has ordered eight Akash squadrons for Rs 6,200 crore, with the first two coming up at the Mirage-2000 base in Gwalior and Sukhoi-30MKI base in Pune. This led to the junking of the long-pending plan to develop the 'Maitri' short-range SAMs with France at a cost of around Rs 30,000 crore.

The Navy, however, does not find the Akash suitable for its warships. It has asked the Parrikar-led defence acquisitions council to empower DRDO to re-engage with French armament major MBDA for joint development of the SAM systems. "Navy's initial requirement is for nine such systems, with 40 missiles each," said a source.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2015 06:46

Sid wrote:
Karan M wrote:True.. blue on blue with long range arty shelling the wrong positions and so forth.. i met an arty guy (subedar) once who left the IA because his hearing was going thanks to all the heavy guns (days before IA started putting ear protection etc for crew), and he was getting increasingly concerned that he might not be able to pick up the right orders from radio sets.
OT but during regular medical checkup, they are assigned medical category if something is wrong which usually lends them some desk job or may be relieved being declared medically unfit.

You get all sorts in the armed forces. Some people with medical issues do not want to be caught out - the doctor can be a terror for some pilots who do not want relegation to non flying category. Others who have put in their time are looking for a way to be released from service after they have reached the age when they can claim a pension. So any disability will be admitted with fingers crossed.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Mar 2015 10:31

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 >>

* Neither the IAF nor IA have any need for the Maitri program, as they are now fully invested in the Akash missile system with future upgrades
* It is only the Indian Navy that wants a new PDMS to succeed the Barak-I who might have some interest left in this.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Mar 2015 10:48

Why can't Astra be a base model for PDMS. I am sure even the current model can exceed the 10-12 km range of Barak-1.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Mar 2015 11:45

^^^

Seems to be a good idea. Let us see how the current DM will handle the issue.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2015 12:04

per news paper today it is indeed IN which has asked DRDO to take a fresh look at the Maitri thing. their requirement is for a few 100 missiles only though. IAF/IA has already paid into Akash and Spyder.

unless IAF/IA amortizes the cost I do not think the proj is economically viable...but still might be worth doing to building self reliance and closing off this gap in portfolio.

DM is also supposed to decide on drdo proposal for next AWACS on 2 x large a/c. only A330 responded to tender so again special permission needed to proceed in single vendor deal.

I figure it will take as much time to make AStra a naval missile as it will for a new maitri...but we all know they were just trying to push some vlmica under the sheets as a new project.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Mar 2015 13:55

The use of Astra for Maitri will have the advantage of increasing the production run for the missile by the numbers required by the Navy. It will provide both the IAF and the IN, with a reduction in sunk R&D costs.

Besides, if the VL MICA can be accpeted for the requirements. Then why not VL ASTRA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Mar 2015 07:23

Folks here is one more totally dumbed down BVRAAM scenario (for simplicty)

Assume BVRAAM has a maximum range of 80 km and a max flight speed of 1000 m/sec

Assume the bogey to be shot down can fly away at 500 m/sec on after burner

Assume that the bogey decides to turn tail and run for it the moment he detects a missile launch. Time to accelerate, manoeuvring etc are being ignored as unnecessary complications

At what range must he detect the missile to be sure to escape?

I stopped doing high school sums like these over four decades ago and I am guessing that it the plane turns tail and runs when it is 80 km away it is sure to escape. If the plane is 40 km away at missile launch - the missile might just catch up with the aircraft as it starts running out of fuel. My guess here is that a plane has to be less than 40 km away from my BVRAAM (as defined above) to hit a target in tail chase.

The problem for the intercepting aircraft is to remain undetected until the chance of interception is highest - i.e. the bogey must continue approaching the interceptor without suspecting that there is a BVRAAM armed interceptor waiting to get him. Obviously if the bogey approaches at say 350 m/sec and a missile is launched from 80 km away - the missile and plane will approach each other at 1350 m/sec. In 45 sec the plane and missile will be 20 km apart and at this stage if he detects the missile, turns tail and runs - the missile still has 35 km worth of gas and might just catch up in tail chase. So the bogey would be better off detecting an approaching missile from at least 30 km away to start running sooner.

In general it seems that if aircraft are going to run at the slightest chance of BVRAAM (of the specs I have written above), they will have to detect the interceptor and start running while they are 80 km away. Or else they must be able to detect the missile while it is at least 30-40 km away. This also means that the interceptor, to get a good chance of a BVRAAM kill, should remain undetected until it is about 40 km away.

If the interceptor and bogey are flying towards each other there is probably one good chance of BVRAAM at 40 km. In 20-30 seconds they will be close enough for a dogfight missile. That means that in the 30 seconds that the interceptor has to wait to see if his missile has hit he will be within range of the other guy's AAM and vice versa

Just Sunday morning timepass..

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Mar 2015 07:36

A BVR AAM which has a brochure range of 100 km in head on high altitude engagement may have a range in reality of only 2km in transonic sea level tail chase SA maneuvering engagement.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Mar 2015 08:10

BVR or WVR, its NEZ is computed based on its launch parameters as well as bogey's status.

And NEZ is always much smaller then max brochure range.

A nice read on topic,
Weapon Engagement Zone Max Launch Range Page 26
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file ... ion=inline

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Mar 2015 08:31

Grimm and Werner are often sourced in many modern discussions on the matter including the paper posted above.

http://www.filedropper.com/grimm-nez

Only thing changed since then (when the paper was written) -

- MAWS have leaped by 2 generations and this has to be factored in hence the Ripple Launch --> Crank ---> launch-->Crank/Fringing requirement for the ATF
- Missiles have become longer ranged
- Newer missiles such as the meteor are throttleable
- ECM plays an important role in launch distance
- Multi-Mode Seekers are just around the corner

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Mar 2015 08:54

Navy can use either Astra or even LRSAM version, why one more import?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Mar 2015 05:29

Upgraded interceptor missile to be test-fired on April 6 - Y.Mallikarjun, The Hindu

A newly configured version of an interceptor missile, designed to improve its efficacy, will be test-fired against an electronic target missile from Wheeler Island on April 6.

As part of India’s plans to deploy a two-tier Ballistic Missile Defence system to protect important cities and installations, missile technologists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have conducted nine interceptor missile tests.

Six of the tests were conducted in the endo-atmosphere (below 40 km altitude) and three in exo-atmosphere (above 80 km). Eight of the tests were successful.

In the upcoming test to be conducted in the endo-atmosphere, the reconfigured version of the interceptor missile (AAD) would be launched to validate its capability to carry a bigger warhead and minimise the mis-distance, among other parameters. Another crucial feature — that of powering the missile when the target missile is detected with a reduced reaction time would also be tested during the mission.

Since the entire exercise from detection till the terminal event is automated, the crucial capability to power the missile after detecting the target would prevent unnecessary powering of the missile, while keeping it alert mode.

While an actual AAD missile would be launched after the take-off of a target missile is simulated on April 6, scientists plan to carry out another exercise by April end in which both the interceptor and target missile would launched with warheads in a real, battle-like scenario, DRDO sources told The Hindu here [Hyderabad] on Sunday.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Mar 2015 13:48

Making a missile is the easier part while getting the associated systems in place is the tougher. Adapting a system for another platform is the toughest.

If it were not so we would already have Akash on our Naval vessels no. Also folks need to remember that Trishul was a separate program .... must have been for a reason.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Mar 2015 14:54

@brar ..isn't there a new Chinese AAM with dual seeker already in service ??

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 30 Mar 2015 15:33

SRSAM is one of the reasons why P15A & P28 were not armed with Barak1

Akash is a heavy missile - 720 kg. While weight does not matter for ground based systems, it does for sea based systems. Ships have size/weight restrictions, so are armed with 275 kg LRSAM and 98 kg Barak1.

The VL-MICA on which Maitri is "supposedly" based has TVC that will enable a vertical launch. It also has radically different flight control system and guidance software than Air to Air MICA.

Ground Launched Astra (rather, Sea Launched Astra) would need modifications to its control systems and guidance software (low level sea clutter rejection, etc).

Interesting to see what DRDO recommends to IN - Maitri or Astra modification. In any case, the system will have significant Indian input like LR-SAM.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 30 Mar 2015 16:46

Indo-French SR-SAM Project Is Back ON

Ten days before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lands in Paris on his first official visit, there's going to be plenty on the table to announce. Moments ago, the Indian MoD cleared the decks for the revival of the all-but-stalled Indo-French SR-SAM (designated 'Maitri') programme. The MoD has instructed the DRDO to progress project discussions with MBDA to begin development for an SR-SAM system for the Indian Navy. As Livefist reported last month, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had received representations from both MBDA and the Indian Navy on moving ahead with the project. Here's Livefist's projection :

The programme will now move ahead principally as a ship-borne SR-SAM system. Spin off variants for the IAF and Indian Army could presumably come later.

MBDA says development will be complete in three years from agreement signature. Things could move quickly given that all workshare and other components of the partnership have already been decided.

MBDA has represented to the DRDO that the Maitri programme could be plugged in for the Akash Mk.2. The precise modalities of that will need to be worked out, though the DRDO is currently on a well-earned high on Akash Mk.1 -- deliveries to the Indian Army begin in a few days, with fresh orders from the IAF in the works.

Live Fist

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 30 Mar 2015 17:05

So navy has requirements similar to RIM 116 RAM? Only difference being its labeled as VL?

But BARAK I is SRSAM for navy, is this about achieving next gen technology. Because French wont share critical information about seekers.

Or we are trying to pacify French after Rafael fallout.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 30 Mar 2015 17:39

Barak1 is CLOS reliant on ship borne Elta 2221 guidance radar. So ship has to keep radar pointed instead of doing evasive hard manoeuvers.

SRSAM will be ARH F&F, so after lock on, ship has freedom of manoeuver.

The project will be meaningless without seeker ToT. Not sure where the French not sharing seeker information came from. As far as I can remember, Astra was to have a French Thales seeker that was changed to a Russian seeker for cost reasons.

Rest assured, IN gives a damn about pacifying the French or Rafale.

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Mar 2015 18:00

What exactly did we gain out of the LRSAM project ? I'd have expected seeker tech as part of collaboration

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 30 Mar 2015 18:46

Tsarkar, so a ship cannot perform hard manoeuvre once tracking radar are locked on?

And its a joint development like LRSAM and PJ10, and country will hold on to critical technology like seeker tech. I have not read anywhere that what will be shared as part of this project.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Mar 2015 18:53

The SRSAM is not just about the missile but the missile + associated system. There are gaps in our technological proficiency that prevents us from having a fully homegrown solution for SRSAM (System). It is difficult to speculate from outside DRDO what those gaps are and may extend beyond the seeker.

We will have to wait for the exact work share to be made public to know what gaps we are hoping the French will plug.

John · Post by **John** » 30 Mar 2015 18:59

Israeli are offering C Dome which offers 360 degree capability and can easily replace barak 1 not sure why that wasnt considered.

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Mar 2015 20:12

Btw, I doubt if Maitri will happen as suggested on Livefist. The reason being IN requirements will be a few hundreds at the most. The volume requirement will be from the Army and AF - that's where it is going run into thousands. Unless IAF/IA are orders are involved (like LRSAM got a separate MRSAM for IAF), I don't see how it would make economic sense.

And the thought of replacing Akash Mk2 - that is what will probably get the hackles of DRDO up and kill the deal.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Mar 2015 20:20

srin wrote:What exactly did we gain out of the LRSAM project ? I'd have expected seeker tech as part of collaboration

We gained no tech but paid USD 3 Billon. Imports are the best!

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 30 Mar 2015 21:27

How did we arrive at few 100's? Assuming All 7 P-15A/B and the 7 P-17A's and 6-12 more of P-28A and the new missile corvette that comes to conservatively 24X 26 = 624 to 32X26 = 832. I have not even included the AC's or LHD's.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Mar 2015 01:45

This news report (could be ad-placement masquerading as news too!), talks as if Maitri is a done deal . 9*40 = 360 missiles to be ordered, which will cost a few thousand crores

The LRSAM deal, especially the ToT, always sounded fishy to me. We gained experience in dual-pulse motor propulsion, guidance etc. But nothing we couldn't have gained by just importing Israeli seekers outright & developing our own missile. And for all the Rh & Dh about delays in domestic R&D projects, the LRSAM joint-development has been no exception. Saurav Jha had mentioned that in a couple of years we would be independent in the seeker technology & so ToT shouldn't matter

Just like in Brahmos, lotsa money spent, but critical technologies withheld after promise of full ToT. Its a joke.

The redeeming feature of LRSAM is (a) Better late than never (b) Decent missile, though a bit short-legged (c) Something better than nothing

Maitri, I'm afraid is going to go down the same path

1) An artificial "joint development with full ToT" will be setup
2) Delays (greenfield VL-Astra might take same amount of time)
3) Billions spent
4) No real gain in knowledge
5) Possible threat to Akash-Mk2 & VL-Astra

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21822

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Mar 2015 06:50

Actually, the development is the fulfillment of a much delayed requirement. Also, it is not the case of importing systems when a desi system is present or imminent. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

They are trying to get as much desi content as possible. Instead of importing a complete system, they are using desi parts wherever present, and co-developing with ToT (read importing) the rest. As and when the desi parts become available, they can start replacing the imported parts with desi parts in existing and/or future systems.

For example, Astra is not ready yet. They have to get a foreign missile, in this case Mica. Our ships cannot go without a quick reaction system for another decade in the IOR with the waters heating up so quickly!

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Mar 2015 07:59

Indranil: Our mistake in LRSAM & potentially Maitri is that of *falling between 2 stools*

If urgency is a key factor, by all means, just import. Gives breathing room for DRDO to work on a replacement system that's fully desi (if that's the desired goal). Reverse engineer wherever you can from the imported system. That's the China way.

But this half-baked ToT with "some" desi parts & "some" foreign parts ends up satisfying neither Indigenization nor Operational-Urgency

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Mar 2015 09:29

Prem Kumar, totally disagree

We will never have all the technology or at least in the next 20-25 years. We have learnt that over time.

Having some indian parts and assembling, along with capital machinery in India gives us some capability and ability to manufacture/ innovate and knowledge. Otherwise imports like in the past will take the entire budget. Slowly as we start assembling we can replacce Indian parts. Further, factories and assembly lines once set up in India can always be upgraded.

Foreign and Arms agent lobby have always stated ohh AArjun is not 100 % indegenious etc let us import. Unless it something shaam like the Tatra trucks which are nothing but CKD imports with 0 % local spares and equipment, I would prefer assembling with some parts made in India where imports can be replaced over a period of time.

Remember it is less of strain on the local economy rather than 100% imports and also gives foreign players lesser leverage.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Mar 2015 09:42

My tenth pass computer vala who can assemble desktops from components is definitely going to give Intel run for its money by reverse engineering computer chips soon.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 31 Mar 2015 10:04

Wasnt it some poster in BR who recently said that microcontrollers/microprocessors are being designed from scratch based on the RISC instruction set in IIT Madras. He did claim that over time super computers would be built using these very processors. He did mention the fabrication ability still not existing and having to get it done in TMC.

The micro processor is the most key link in any defence system. We still rely on the west for this, even Russia does. Gone are the days of even Russian self reliance in microprocessor technology and they rely on off-the-shelf products.

If we can crack the microprocessor/fab challenge there is nothing else we cannot crack (errr...except for engine cores technology).

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 10:15

Gyan wrote:
srin wrote:What exactly did we gain out of the LRSAM project ? I'd have expected seeker tech as part of collaboration
We gained no tech but paid USD 3 Billon. Imports are the best!

Gyan wrote:My tenth pass computer vala who can assemble desktops from components is definitely going to give Intel run for its money by reverse engineering computer chips soon.

If your 10th pass vala cannot reverse engineering then he must rely on others for the computer chip for his own needs and also forget about competing with Intel.

If India cannot reverse engineer then we MUST import. I agree with you that import are the best in such a situation. We can't have capital ships worth billions of dollars without proper defenses.

Siddhu · Post by **Siddhu** » 31 Mar 2015 11:01

Gyan wrote:My tenth pass computer vala who can assemble desktops from components is definitely going to give Intel run for its money by reverse engineering computer chips soon.

India have the capability to design high speed chips and stuffs, only thing lacking is a full scale fab unit. People underestimate our capabilities too much. Ghar ki murgi daal barabar

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 11:04

This is not about chips ... but about self reliance (on the wings of a prayer) vs import.