India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 00:04

Its still sponge. Re-melt is to make the metal which can be processed further.
So most likely its at the downstream customer level.

Double and triple melt is needed for high fracture resistance.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Jul 2015 01:23

Ramana saar one more of your "clan"
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150713/l ... r-missiles

At first glance, you wouldn’t believe that B.H.V.S. Narayana Murthy was a weapons system genius who has helped take India’s missile defence system into the digital world. The soft-spoken scientist, who is associate director at the Research Centre Imarat (RCI) and also its technology director, recently won the Astronautical Society of India’s award for Rocketry and Related Technologies.

Murthy, who was awarded for his work on on-board computer (OBC) systems and for developing India’s first OBC chip system, explains, “A missile is basically a guided rocket. We have to feed the correct longitude and latitude, parameters, control inertial navigation system, trajectory calculations, controlling the missile… all of this run on the OBC.”

Born in West Godavari, Murthy attended schools in Nellore and Guntur and went on to graduate from NIT Warangal with a bachelor’s degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering in 1985. After joining the DRDO in Pune for an electronics fellowship course the next year, he was picked up by the DRDL in 1987 and began working on OBCs from then on.

“At that time Dr Abdul Kalam was the director and I reported to him,” Narayana remembers, “For the first Agni missile launch, we were at the test facility for more than a month, working till about 2 am every day. At that time too, Kalam used to come work with us.” He adds that the same culture continues even today, with junior level scientists free to interact with directors any time they want.

Most of Murthy’s work comprises getting each sub-system of the missile programme to work on one chip that controls them all. “It takes inputs from the navigational system and calculates the optimal trajectory for the missile to move. It also controls stage separation in multi-stage vehicles and time-based mission events and records post launch data too.”

He had to work on getting the chip to work in every possible condition, especially in varying temperatures. With around 200 launches for missiles systems like the Agni, Brahmos and Aakash, Narayana says he and his team spent many a night fine-tuning each system’s OBC.

Currently working on “smart bombs” that use these chips to correct trajectories mid-air, making them lethal for even moving targets, Narayana says that the trend of “small is better” applies to weapons systems too. “We do the same, to increase the lethality and payload of weapons,” he says, adding, “We’re trying to make on-board avionics, with navigation systems, telemetry, seekers, all onto one modular set.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 01:32

Very, very interesting.

Lucky of him to join in 1985 and be in the bunker in 1989!

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 14 Jul 2015 08:26

"He had to work on getting the chip to work in every possible condition,.."

Please excuse the silly question, is this chip made in India, or designed in India, and fabricated elsewhere?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Jul 2015 09:15

^Probably made here. Munitions chips only need to be hardy and get the job done, not the like the super thin, ultra layered, multipurpose and delicate products used in civilian computers. Its just that its design makes it more applicable for its designated purpose. Its not the chip technology (layers, transistors, nanometer) per se that is state-of-the art, it is just the application. As far as just IC technology goes, no military chip will ever beat the stuff produced by Intel and AMD (unless its some lab prototype, which of course is not a commercial product).

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 14 Jul 2015 15:53

^
Thanks, so India probably has had the capability to produce such chips for many years. I even vaguely remember something about India having a fair number of VLSI units. These must be making the chips, or ASIC's.

member_28911 · Post by **member_28911** » 14 Jul 2015 16:24

latest SOC's are fabricated in Malaysia ...?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2015 16:57

Karan M wrote:>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3299524/posts

SDB-2 costs around $115K. Its unaffordable for us if we want to procure in the thousands. Seeker tech will be quarantined as well.
We need to get our own low cost munitions up and running asap and funding has to be commensurate. No more trickle feed UPA style budgeting and capabilities only for extended trials. Hope Christopher saar realizes the potential of these programs and supports them.

True. That apart it requires a local accuracy enhancement system that updates the munition about the latest and most accurate coordinates. For the US it might be cheaper than JSOW which they use now, given that the other guidance infrastructure is all in place.

The other point that seems to get some people worked up (unnecessarily in my view) is that if by chance the SDB had been designed 6 inches longer or 2 inches broader, eight of them would not fit the US stealth fighters F-22 of F-35's internal bays. With just 20 kg explosive it has to be pretty damn accurate.and demands a CEP of less than 2 meters and all the guidance infrastructure that is necessary to achieve that. A bigger bomb with say 100 kg of explosive could afford to be slightly less accurate. We do not have the restriction of needing a bomb that fits the F-35s bays. We could continue to develop bigger size bombs with guidance to achieve with a CEP of about 10 meters.

I don't see the need to hit single trucks like the US does. If we are fighting our usual foes the collateral damage would be welcome

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Jul 2015 19:26

Ankar wrote:latest SOC's are fabricated in Malaysia ...?

Wasn't that the private sector company Data Patterns that makes seeker chips (for Brahmos, etc.) in Singapore or something?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 14 Jul 2015 19:52

Indian SoC's are developed at ANURAG and AFAIK manufactured at SITAR.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 14 Jul 2015 21:03

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote:>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3299524/posts

SDB-2 costs around $115K. Its unaffordable for us if we want to procure in the thousands. Seeker tech will be quarantined as well.
We need to get our own low cost munitions up and running asap and funding has to be commensurate. No more trickle feed UPA style budgeting and capabilities only for extended trials. Hope Christopher saar realizes the potential of these programs and supports them.
True. That apart it requires a local accuracy enhancement system that updates the munition about the latest and most accurate coordinates. For the US it might be cheaper than JSOW which they use now, given that the other guidance infrastructure is all in place.

Define 'guidance infrastructure'. If by that you mean a Navigation satellite system, the costs are pretty low. We have implemented a system of 7 satellites, each with an expected lifespan of around 10 years. So on average, you would be launching 1 PSLV type rocket every 1.5 years. Using wiki cost numbers, (100 crores for PSLV, and 100 crores for the satellite) you get a figure of around 1500 crores for the entire system, and about 150 crores per year for rockets and satellites. Doubling that number for the ground based stations to control the system, we get around 300 crores per year.

This is less than the cost of a *single* 4G+ fighter jet. Now, calculate the kind of things you can do with this capability.

shiv wrote:The other point that seems to get some people worked up (unnecessarily in my view) is that if by chance the SDB had been designed 6 inches longer or 2 inches broader, eight of them would not fit the US stealth fighters F-22 of F-35's internal bays. With just 20 kg explosive it has to be pretty damn accurate.and demands a CEP of less than 2 meters and all the guidance infrastructure that is necessary to achieve that.

The US also has a political need to be accurate and so do we. E.g. You will never be able to take out Hafiz Saeed with a 2000 pounder. The second point is, that US owns its technology. Why would it design the SDB 6 inches longer or 2 inches broader? This argument is like insisting that a 50 cal gun is much better than a 5.56 mm, and if the US had designed its rifle cartridges at 6.8mm, they would not be able to use it in their M4s.

shiv wrote: A bigger bomb with say 100 kg of explosive could afford to be slightly less accurate. We do not have the restriction of needing a bomb that fits the F-35s bays. We could continue to develop bigger size bombs with guidance to achieve with a CEP of about 10 meters.

You are putting the horse before the cart. The nature of the technology used for guidance is such that it draws upon the progress in the civil sector (better software, better silicon) and more accuracy is a natural consequence. The argument is, why do I need a 100kg of explosive, when I can guide my weapon to within 2 meters of where I want it to go? As I mentioned earlier, the cost of replicating the guidance technology is near 0 after a certain number of units have been built. The cost of producing/packaging/carrying those 100 kgs of extra explosive does not go down in a similar manner.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 17:16

sudeepj wrote: Define 'guidance infrastructure'. If by that you mean a Navigation satellite system, the costs are pretty low.

In order that no confusion is created by mulitiple people not reading multiple posts of mine, I repeat that I am talking about the infrastructure required to achieve less than 2-3 meter CEP using Small Diameter bombs (as defined by the US) - 8 of which can fit into the F-35's bay and which are about 70 inches long, weigh about 280 lb and have about 20 kg of explosive which will come in variants SDB I and SDB II

The guidance used for the above mentioned munition depends on whether it is SDB I or II. SDB I is GPS guided. But what it requires apart from GPS guidance is "SDB accuracy support Infrastructure". From Wiki (i have a more academic source but I will post it only if you insist)

The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5–8 meters,[11] which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within that distance of its intended target. CEP is reduced by updating differential GPS offsets prior to weapon release. These offsets are calculated using an SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three or more GPS receivers at fixed locations transmitting calculated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft.

That accuracy support infrastructure is "3 fixed locations" plus AWACS, Drone or man on ground - any of who can update the exact coordinates. This SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure costs - according to another source US$ 700,000 per area of operation where SDBs are supposed to be used.

So our 7 satellites will not do the trick

sudeepj wrote:You are putting the horse before the cart. The nature of the technology used for guidance is such that it draws upon the progress in the civil sector (better software, better silicon) and more accuracy is a natural consequence. The argument is, why do I need a 100kg of explosive, when I can guide my weapon to within 2 meters of where I want it to go? As I mentioned earlier, the cost of replicating the guidance technology is near 0 after a certain number of units have been built. The cost of producing/packaging/carrying those 100 kgs of extra explosive does not go down in a similar manner.

India now has the ability to illuminate targets by laser and use laser reflections to help bombs home in to an accuracy level of maybe a 10-20 meter level CEP. The drawback is that laser is blinded by smoke and cloud and there has to be an AWACS, friendly fighter, drone or man on the ground illuminating the target continuously till the bomb hits. Still the accuracy is only in tens of meters - which is fine with bigger bombs such as 250 kb bombs. We also have inertial guidance which is probably as good for short ranges but we have not fitted them on dumb, gliding bombs yet. But it is unlikely toget us 2-3 meter CEP which is what the US defined and designed SDB requires

In order to field the SDB (a US defined and made weapons as defined above) India would have to rent or buy and put in place the additional infrastructure which we do not have. That apart the new SDB II is supposed to have IR and MMW. We have IR guidance on Nag, but I don't think we are there yet wrt MMW

Please cut out this rhetorical "cart before the horse" nonsense. What we have now is laser designation for warheads. We do not have the ability to feed accurate GPS coordinates to warheads to achieve less than 2-3 meter accuracy. For that we will have to buy from the US. Indigenous development is some years away. Not a current capability. Current capability is the "horse". The future is the cart. You are putting the cart before the horse. Not me.

This is part I of my reply. I will now post part II - and I have done it several times before, but since you will not go back and find what I have said I will simply repeat.

The US defined and designed SDB is a puny weapon that necessarily must fit into the F-22 and F-35. This makes sense for the US because the US has equally accurate larger weapons like the JSOW. For the US it is cheaper in some circumstances to field and SDB rather than the much heavier JSO weapons.

If we, in India were to develop the equivalent of a "Small Diameter Bomb" we need not be held back by the puny and inconvenient size restrictions of the American SDB. We can design a bomb that is heavier which can still penetrate and give a respectable size blast and our existing aircraft will still be able to carry 6, 8 or more of these

In fact there is a patent of just such a bomb developed in Germany that lists out all the drawbacks of the current US defined and designed SDB. I will locate and post for those who may be interested

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 17:33

The patent below discusses the drawbacks of "long thin deep penetration weapons" such as the SDB and says that this patent is to add a penetrator capability to an ordinary General Purpose Bomb
https://www.google.com/patents/US6910421

This is what the patent has to say about "long thin deep penetration" bombs - which is what the SDB is

However, in modern warfare certain targets are extremely well protected. Hardened aircraft shelters may be protected by one or more meters of reinforced concrete which may be covered by a layer of soil or sand. Aircraft runways may be several meters thick. Tactical bunkers may be protected by several meters of reinforced concrete with mounded earth providing further protection.

Considerable effort has been devoted to the development of high penetration bombs capable of penetrating modern hard targets. These efforts have largely been directed towards the development of bombs designed to penetrate the target by virtue of their kinetic energy. This has led to long, thin designs having thick cases, which necessitates a reduction in the proportion of high explosive to about 20-25% of all-up weight. The terminal effect of the bomb is correspondingly reduced. Its penetration into the target is also critically dependent upon its velocity of impact, which in practice needs to be approaching Mach 1.0. This increases the difficulty of delivery.

In the SDB the "penetrator" part of the warhead is 75% of warhead weight and the explosive is only 25% by weight

India need not take the SDB route exactly.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2015 17:42

The SDB is not designed around all hardened targets..It simply is not! It has a specific penetration requirement which has been upped over the course of its requirement evolution and the final SDBI had approximately 6 feetof steel reinforced concrete as its requirements against certain target types as was shown in the targets-slide about it. It has successfully engaged those targets in actual developmental and operational testing (video provided as well). There are no plans to make a bunker busting, or anti-tunnel weapon in this weight class, or to expand the SDB's role to more hardened targets than what it is designed against. The solution to getting a bigger penetration power against an increasingly growing hardening ability is to have a propelled weapon and to do so with a rocket motor in the back.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/afrl-moves ... uster-f-35

No plans exist to bring this capability to the SDB because currently there is no need for it. The next iteration of the SDB family would most likely involve adding a turbojet to the back to meet the Spear III requirements and give non-stealthy fighters flying at sub-10,000 feet altitudes the range. Even the MBDA spear III proposal uses a US motor, and one that Raytheon readily employs for some of its other weapons.

As far as what route India should take, it really depends upon the sort of targets the 250 pound weapon is looking at. The IDF for example chose to stick to higher priced targets with the Spice 250..they did not invest in the cheap_bomb_to_Fixed_Target arena as they simply bought a few thousand SDB's. One advantage the IAF has however is that it does not yet have a high PGM to non PGM munition inventory allowing it to move to something that is clean sheet. The IDF or the USAF have to design around their large PGM (relative) inventories so that somewhat constrains them when it comes to formulating requirements.

The reason why both the SDB (I and II) and the Spice 250 are in the 250-300 pound weight (SDB actually weighs 280 pounds) is because of the size/weight trade off. The main design goal was to design a weapon that the BRU-61/A or a similar rack could carry 4 off. If you can design a bomb with the range, seeker performance and weight of a 500 pound GBU-38, or even something that weighs 400 pounds and still manage that magazine depth then you have something even better.

The guidance used for the above mentioned munition depends on whether it is SDB I or II. SDB I is GPS guided. But what it requires apart from GPS guidance is "SDB accuracy support Infrastructure". From Wiki (i have a more academic source but I will post it only if you insist)

The deployed ASI costs as per your academic paper around $700,000 and is deployable, and one needs a system that is spread by about 2700+ Km. Not only the SDB, but the technology is being (or probably has been since the article i provided is over a decade old) incorporated into all JDAM family of weapons because the operator sees a benefit in improving the GPS/INS bomb accuracy to nearly LGB levels in the future. They'd be dumb not to make use of that. ASI or no ASI, the operational evaluation has shown the SDB to meets its performance expectations even without it. Another thing you need with GPS weapons? Satellites and all the ground infrastructure to design, maintain and calibrate the accuracy. So if one decides to go down the Satelite path it would be reasonable that the operator would make the necessary investments to make sure that those GPS munitions are kept up to date with the most accurate targeting possibly...

In order to field the SDB (a US defined and made weapons as defined above) India would have to rent or buy and put in place the additional infrastructure which we do not have. That apart the new SDB II is supposed to have IR and MMW. We have IR guidance on Nag, but I don't think we are there yet wrt MMW

I'd like to see a source of the L4/LGB CEP of 20 meters. That is a ridiculously high number. Secondly, its not about IR or MMW, its about a multi-mode seeker that combines 3 things into one packaging, MMW, IIR, and laser. On the other hand as the Spice 250 has shown, the SDB is not the only game in town. The Spice-250 is designed to fall in between the SDBI and SDBII price points..They made the trade to drop MMW because of that very reason (otherwise it would have been creamed by the SDBII on price given its volume).

But the point still is that you may need something for the short term, but if you have programs of record ongoing as SJHA has claimed, then you can simply wait for the capability to bear fruit. Thats a judgement the government has to make in consultation with the operator and developer.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2015 17:53

If we are fighting our usual foes the collateral damage would be welcome

Collateral damage is unwanted/unintended/unnecessary damage. Women and children is an example. Or a place of worship. Kill additional soldiers (from the bad side), more than the intended number, is not considered collateral damage.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 19:48

shiv, Indian too has need to target trucks of the TSP strategic force.
Think of a chotu on an Indian SDB.

from chaiwalas, Indian stuff is in trials and with hawai force involvement.

So soon argument will be moot.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 21:10

ramana wrote:shiv, Indian too has need to target trucks of the TSP strategic force.
Think of a chotu on an Indian SDB.

from chaiwalas, Indian stuff is in trials and with hawai force involvement.

So soon argument will be moot.

ramana India needs to target trains and trucks - but one US$ 100,000 bomb for one truck does not make sense to me. There are reasons why the US currently likes to hit one truck at a time - but when push comes to shove even the US will strafe or clusterbomb a whole convoy of trucks in one go

And let me point out yet again. Targeting moving trucks is a capability that the SDB II is supposed to get when it is in service - using GPS. MMR and IR with an eye in the sky giving up to the second coordinates to the bomb guidance kit as to where the truck is.

In this connection I think people need to keep in mind a few facts. SDBs are supposed to be launched from 100 km away. Gliding 100 km will probably take at least 20-30 minutes because even freefall objects plateau off at a velocity of about 200 kmph, let alone a gliding bomb. That means a single truck that is being targeted from 100 km away has to be continuously tracked for 20-30 minutes or more by some loitering aircraft or drone to feed the final coordinates. This is fine for US over Afghanistan or Syria. How and why would India want some airborne asset loitering over Paki or Chinese airspace for 20 or more minutes watching a single truck? How long would a moving truck be visible in hilly/undulating terrain? How long before our loitering asset is shot down?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 21:12

NRao wrote:
If we are fighting our usual foes the collateral damage would be welcome
Collateral damage is unwanted/unintended/unnecessary damage. Women and children is an example. Or a place of worship. Kill additional soldiers (from the bad side), more than the intended number, is not considered collateral damage.

This is the realm of philosophy. Reality comes home only when we see what they are doing to us.

The US became sensitive to public display of collateral damage after Vietnam. Nowadays they claim that there is not much collateral damage, unless you listen to what the US's enemies say. There are always 2 sides to a story.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2015 21:22

In this connection I think people need to keep in mind a few facts. SDBs are supposed to be launched from 100 km away.

SDB's have a max range of that much. You can lob an SDB from that range but you won't in many conditions.

That means a single truck that is being targeted from 100 km away has to be continuously tracked for 20-30 minutes or more by some loitering aircraft or drone to feed the final coordinates. This is fine for US over Afghanistan or Syria. How and why would India want some airborne asset loitering over Paki or Chinese airspace for 20 or more minutes watching a single truck? How long would a moving truck be visible in hilly/undulating terrain?

You won't launch a weapon like that form that range with the intention to get a critical moving target. Even the US won't employ the SDBII like that. Glide profiles and long ranges will be used (as they are for heavier glide weapons) for fixed targets and those targets that have long delays in mobility or are slow to move..such as radar installations or SAM batteries.

Want a rapid, and credible capability to take out a moving, time critical target from 100km away at a moment's notice? Better develop something much much more expensive than glide bomb. That is not and was not the requirement from this weapon.

Targeting moving trucks is a capability that the SDB II is supposed to get when it is in service - using GPS.

The SDBII (GBU-53/B) uses GPS/INS only for navigation and not for targeting. For targeting it uses its tri-mode seeker that uses MMW, IIR, and semi-active-laser. It also has a standard Link-16 and UHF link.

The Gbu-53B received Milestone C approval in May of this year and is cleared for full rate production and can deploy with the F-15E if required in any situation. It is also coming in at a lower than planned acquisition cost.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-412401/

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Jul 2015 21:25

Prototype GBU-39/B SDB I attacking Hardened Aircraft Shelter (HAS)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 21:27

shiv, Depends on what the truck is carrying.
SDB will give strike flexibility to IAF. They need it like yesterday.

Any war will be max 96 hours.
IAF has to generate and destroy as many targets as possible in that time.

BTW who is talking of $100K SDB.
Am talking of desi maal with tri-mode seeker(IR, Laser and MMW from the EFP cargo shell).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2015 21:36

For desi maal call it SDB or AASCB ( aati adhunik sabse chota bum ) developing an IIR/Optical/Laser seeker would be cost effective as MMW would have its own power requirement and complexity as we learnt via Nag plus the other stuff is already available

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 21:37

ramana wrote:

BTW who is talking of $100K SDB.
Am talking of desi maal with tri-mode seeker(IR, Laser and MMW from the EFP cargo shell).

That is why I request that the term SDB should not be used. SDB is currently a very specific American weapon. Not a general thing that can fit any classification or definition or warhead weight that is convenient for a given discussion

We are talking about generic free fall, unpowered, gliding precision weapons and their guidance systems. Not SDBs

A "small diameter" bomb could be anything from 4 inches to 12 inches in diameter - each inch makes a difference to capability. So let us talk about precision Guided Munitions - or PGMs and not SDBs. SDB made by the US are a subset of PGMs with a very specific and limited role.

You don't need to have the exact weight and diameter of American SDBs to kill hardened bunkers. A brief look at all the weapons that exist for that purpose will reveal that the American SDB is just one more weapon that is being advertised for that purpose. And I worry at how attractive that restricted and stunted weapon is being made to appear despite its restricted role and complicated guidance system. There are other routes to achieve the same result.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 21:48

What targets would we need to hit in war?
1. Runways
2. Radars
3. Aircraft shelters
4. Ammunition dumps, fuel tanks, refineries
5. Command and Communication (hardened bunkers)
6. Area targets - vehicles, tanks, troops, supplies
7. Transport infrastructure like bridges
8. Convoys of troops, trains, tanks and trucks
9. Missile launch sites
10. Artillery pieces
11. Water and electric supply (transformers, substations, storage tanks)
12 Targets of opportunity

What are the classes of munitions that would be most appropriate for these?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Jul 2015 23:10

Gents, I think now this discussion is more suited for the missiles and munitions thread?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 23:14

Now you are talking. Hope abhibhushan saar and tsarkar* can chime in with practical knowledge.

* tsarkar I think I am your age and don't want to saar you!!!

KaranM, Its more about what should DRDO and OFB work on.
More like requirments not yet achievements.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 16 Jul 2015 02:21

The move to smaller and more accurate munitions is a continuum. When introduced, laser guided munitions also required expensive infrastructure (aiming pods, ground lasing stations) and munitions (seekers, guidance kits) compared to dumb iron bombs that, in theory, could have been overcome with larger bombs and/or a bigger bomb load. Each Litening III pod costs more than $1M - and that's a per-airplane cost! Makes the per-theater $700k GPS augmentation for SDBs sound cheap. I don't hear many takers for discontinuing LGBs in favor of larger dumb bombs. So it will be with SDB-like munitions. In a matter of 10 years or so, they will be the new normal.

Also, lest we conclude that "puny and accurate" weapons have no place in the Indian context:

Kargil revisited: Air Operations in a High Altitude Conflict (Center for Land Warfare Studies)

Had the IAF too dropped the same amount of
tonnage, precision-guided weapons and GPS assisted bombs like the JDAMs
(joint direct attack munitions), the Kargil conflict may have ended much
earlier. However, it must also be highlighted that the effectiveness of this genre
of weapons with a mean CEP (circular error of probability) of between 10-13
metres was less than it would have been in flat terrain due to the steep inclines
that converted low horizontal miss distances into higher vertical distances,
allowing the defender to continue operating from existing locations.

I.e., even the CEP offered by JDAMs was insufficient.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2015 04:13

shiv, That's the UK Brimstone weapon. They have a tandem warhead. The shaped charge clears a hole into which the follow on goes through. Shaped charges with concrete have their own issues.
What we are talking about is the pure vanilla penetrator.

And UK came up with that after Desert Storm. Lots of PR from Janes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 04:17

Raman wrote:The move to smaller and more accurate munitions is a continuum. When introduced, laser guided munitions also required expensive infrastructure (aiming pods, ground lasing stations) and munitions (seekers, guidance kits) compared to dumb iron bombs that, in theory, could have been overcome with larger bombs and/or a bigger bomb load. Each Litening III pod costs more than $1M - and that's a per-airplane cost! Makes the per-theater $700k GPS augmentation for SDBs sound cheap. I don't hear many takers for discontinuing LGBs in favor of larger dumb bombs. So it will be with SDB-like munitions. In a matter of 10 years or so, they will be the new normal.

I am wary of philosophical predictions like "continuum" and "new normal". This is American maya that even they do not follow seriously. But their publicity apparatus is so powerful we use their expressions all over the place. "New Normal" is more like well oiled sales talk than a description of war.

Scratch below the rhetoric and you find that the US used more tonnage of bombs in Vietnam than all of WW 2, and the name "Highway of death" where Iraqi columns were wiped out an buried in the desert have happened within living memory. And the Israelis who are also masters of using LGBs are not writing philosophical passages about less is more and that is the new normal. If soldiers hide with civilians, all will be killed.

Litening pods are not blown up with every mission. It is the cost of bombs that builds up, especially if we have to import them. Anyone who actually reads the material available will know that "one shot one kill" does not happen as often as desirable except in the most ideal. idyllic, condition. Only the best ones appear on YouTube. Second and third shots are needed. It is the import of puny SDBs at an advertised price of Rs 65 lakhs a pop, probably more for us, along with usage restrictions placed on us by the US, that worries me.

Raman wrote:Also, lest we conclude that "puny and accurate" weapons have no place in the Indian context:

Kargil revisited: Air Operations in a High Altitude Conflict (Center for Land Warfare Studies)
Had the IAF too dropped the same amount of
tonnage, precision-guided weapons and GPS assisted bombs like the JDAMs
(joint direct attack munitions), the Kargil conflict may have ended much
earlier. However, it must also be highlighted that the effectiveness of this genre
of weapons with a mean CEP (circular error of probability) of between 10-13
metres was less than it would have been in flat terrain due to the steep inclines
that converted low horizontal miss distances into higher vertical distances,
allowing the defender to continue operating from existing locations.
I.e., even the CEP offered by JDAMs was insufficient.

The problem was not CEP - it was terrain. Exactly the same problem (of terrain) would affect the puny SDBs if, horror of horrors, we were to fall for American sales maya and bribes and import them. And it would have been funny had it not been serious. We used American Paveway kits in Kargil but they were used with a jugaad job because a "wrong part" had been supplied with the original, making them unusable. The story is on BR. At least, with 200 kg of explosive the LGBs we did use worked on area targets like the Muntho Dalo camp. A 20 kg explosive SDB would have buried itself 10 feet deep in the mountainside, exploded underground and made a nice bore hole latrine for the Pakis to indulge in the wudhu and Pakiness

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 04:32

ramana wrote:shiv, That's the UK Brimstone weapon. They have a tandem warhead. The shaped charge clears a hole into which the follow on goes through. Shaped charges with concrete have their own issues.
What we are talking about is the pure vanilla penetrator.

And UK came up with that after Desert Storm. Lots of PR from Janes.

ramana I think you will understand that as a designer who is asked to design a very accurate bomb that penetrates 5 feet of concrete you have a choice of a bomb that could be perhaps 4 to 8 feet long and perhaps 4 inches to 12 inches in diameter, and maybe you have a choice of designing its weight to be say between 200 lb and 800 lb.

But your exact choice of weight and size would be restricted by the demand to design a size and weight that would enable every available aircraft in your air force to carry the largest possible numbers. It so happened that the dimensions of the SDB allows 8 of them to go in an F-22. Any bigger and only 6 or 4 would have been accommodated. Because of this design restriction the SDB has a puny explosive warhead. And because it has a puny explosive warhead, a "near miss" will not be good enough for many targets. The designers and sales people are not going to tell you this. They would be stupid if they did. We have to see what is obvious and what is mentioned by rivals.

We in India should not be restricted by the design specifications faced by the US. We can create a bomb that is more forgiving that will still work with a 10-15 meter CEP. And to such a design we can add features like bomblets for area demolition etc when we need to hit multiple vehicles or personnel rather than make a bore hole alone.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2015 04:33

shiv,

A 20 kg explosive SDB would have buried itself 10 feet deep in the mountainside, exploded underground and made a nice bore hole latrine for the Pakis to indulge in the wudhu and Pakiness

Very true. Deeply piskological.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Jul 2015 09:24

In some Kargill raids, 4 Mirages were dropping 1.5 ton dumb bombs reach i.e. 6 tons on each Paki post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 09:56

Gyan wrote:In some Kargill raids, 4 Mirages were dropping 1.5 ton dumb bombs reach i.e. 6 tons on each Paki post.

Most of the damage was done by dumb bombs dropped from levels that were out of range of Paki fire. Only 6 LGBs were used. But LGBs make a great story.

I was reading a Bullatomsci link about the first Gulf war and they stated that of 88,000 tons of bombs dropped, only 7% (6000 tons) were PGMs. The latter did a signficant percentage of damage but that did not stop the usage of dumb bombs.

Link

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 16 Jul 2015 10:43

shiv wrote:I am wary of philosophical predictions like "continuum" and "new normal". This is American maya that even they do not follow seriously. But their publicity apparatus is so powerful we use their expressions all over the place. "New Normal" is more like well oiled sales talk than a description of war.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There will be a range of targets that require different levels of precision to attack them. Using SDB-like weapons will be a necessity for some class of targets, and this will become a part of normal IAF operations in the future to require end depend on such accuracy. It is equally naive to think that the be-all and end-all of aerial bombardment is to overfly stacks of B-17s and carpet bomb every target like Dresden.

Scratch below the rhetoric and you find that the US used more tonnage of bombs in Vietnam than all of WW 2, and the name "Highway of death" where Iraqi columns were wiped out an buried in the desert have happened within living memory. And the Israelis who are also masters of using LGBs are not writing philosophical passages about less is more and that is the new normal. If soldiers hide with civilians, all will be killed.

Of course. But also keep in mind that:
a) we don't have B-52 and B-1 that can loiter indefinitely for carpet bombing targets at our convenience
b) we cannot assume that every conflict going forward will be in uncontested airspace that we can overfly any target of our choice and drop tons of dumb bombs

Litening pods are not blown up with every mission.

The GPS augmentation of SDB guidance systems also do not spontaneously vaporize after every mission.

It is the cost of bombs that builds up, especially if we have to import them. Anyone who actually reads the material available will know that "one shot one kill" does not happen as often as desirable except in the most ideal. idyllic, condition. Only the best ones appear on YouTube. Second and third shots are needed. It is the import of puny SDBs at an advertised price of Rs 65 lakhs a pop, probably more for us, along with usage restrictions placed on us by the US, that worries me.

A portfolio of smart weapons is something that India has to develop locally and not depend on others for. Sudarshan is a first baby step in a long journey. The solution to the problem is more research and local development as per our requirements, and not a blanket pronouncement that SDB-like PGMs are a meaningless wet dream unworthy of Indian consideration and use. What do you suppose AMCA will have to carry for first day strikes, if not something like SDB?

The problem was not CEP - it was terrain.

The problem was exactly CEP - uneven terrain multiplies guidance errors, it does not render the problem of guidance moot. When a miss by a few meters causes the bomb to go down the cliff and explode at the bottom, a larger weapon buys you absolutely nothing. A more accurate weapon is exactly what you want.

Most of the damage was done by dumb bombs dropped from levels that were out of range of Paki fire.

Is it safe to assume that the Pakistanis and Chinese will forever more be unable to fire upwards with sufficient range? If not, what is your proposed solution, if not for precision guided weapons with stand-off range?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jul 2015 11:21

Make in India: Govt may make strategic sector source chips from local manufacturers

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Jul 2015 12:08

shiv wrote: That is why I request that the term SDB should not be used. SDB is currently a very specific American weapon. Not a general thing that can fit any classification or definition or warhead weight that is convenient for a given discussion<SNIP>

Actually, this latching on to 'next best thing' from USA by BRFites is something we accuse our Armed Forces, or to be politically correct, IA and IAF, of being habitual of. Guess, the fruit does not fall far from the tree!

But we digress.

The way I see this SDB thing is this - It is a unique American solution to American problem. But the great salesmen that Americans are, they'll advertise it as 'Revolution in Military Affairs' and how it is a must have weapon to win the next war against your favorite bad-boys. Hey, it doesn't hurt if I can get more customers outside of USAF and get more orders and profit.

The SDB is akin to a specially manufactured bullet fired by a very high precision/accurate and VERY EXPENSIVE sniper rifle - it will be used to take out high value targets but needs to ensure that every shot counts as the Sniper carries limited ammo and has limited holding power; after all, he needs to infiltrate the enemy camp and be as close as possible (scope and gun range being limiting factors) and get out quickly.

Now, the Americans want you to believe that even the Johnnies need to carry this special ammunition for their assault rifles as well - and use it for everything that an infantry soldier is expected to do.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Jul 2015 12:31

^^^ SDB is just another munition. If it was not to fit on the F 22 and F 35 bays why was it called Small Diameter Bomb and not just Small Bomb or Small Glide Bomb or something?

SDB will bring on the table specific capabilities for specific scenarios. So what are the Indian scenarios which our Forces plan where we will use SDBs?

Are we developing our SDB's for the IUSAV and AMCA?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 13:34

Raman wrote: Using SDB-like weapons
<snip>
blanket pronouncement that SDB-like PGMs are a meaningless wet dream

Define "SDB-like". I don't know what that means. it could mean anything.

Raman wrote:The problem was exactly CEP - uneven terrain multiplies guidance errors, it does not render the problem of guidance moot. When a miss by a few meters causes the bomb to go down the cliff and explode at the bottom, a larger weapon buys you absolutely nothing. A more accurate weapon is exactly what you want.

Nothing succeeds like success. The IAF is on record that dumb bombs did the job that you so painstakingly and diligently point out as being nearly impossible except with "more accurate" weapons. Is it safe to assume that dumb, unguided bombs do not know what CEP means and so all your objections disappear? They did work despite all the gyan Google has thrown up.

Raman wrote: Is it safe to assume that the Pakistanis and Chinese will forever more be unable to fire upwards with sufficient range?

The Pakis and the Chinese had that capability in 1999 but did not use it. If the conditions that made them unable to use such resources in 1999 are recreated again in any future war it is safe to assume that they will once again be unable to "fire upwards with sufficient range".

Raman wrote:If not, what is your proposed solution, if not for precision guided weapons with stand-off range?

LOL! My proposed solution is that you stop imagining that SDB or SDB like (whatever you mean by that) is the only solution that exists. Once you get past the "Fog of America" thought block what I have beeen saying time and again will become clear.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 13:41

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote: That is why I request that the term SDB should not be used. SDB is currently a very specific American weapon. Not a general thing that can fit any classification or definition or warhead weight that is convenient for a given discussion<SNIP>
Actually, this latching on to 'next best thing' from USA by BRFites is something we accuse our Armed Forces, or to be politically correct, IA and IAF, of being habitual of. Guess, the fruit does not fall far from the tree!

But we digress.

The way I see this SDB thing is this - It is a unique American solution to American problem. But the great salesmen that Americans are, they'll advertise it as 'Revolution in Military Affairs' and how it is a must have weapon to win the next war against your favorite bad-boys. Hey, it doesn't hurt if I can get more customers outside of USAF and get more orders and profit.

The SDB is akin to a specially manufactured bullet fired by a very high precision/accurate and VERY EXPENSIVE sniper rifle - it will be used to take out high value targets but needs to ensure that every shot counts as the Sniper carries limited ammo and has limited holding power; after all, he needs to infiltrate the enemy camp and be as close as possible (scope and gun range being limiting factors) and get out quickly.

Now, the Americans want you to believe that even the Johnnies need to carry this special ammunition for their assault rifles as well - and use it for everything that an infantry soldier is expected to do.

Precisely Rohit. But the American propaganda apparatus is so tempting that once it is advertised in the media as the best thing everyone picks it up. My real worry is that some people in influential positions in the armed forces too might be somewhat charmed by the slick propaganda apparatus. It happens in medicine. Some perfectly expensive and not particularly useful technologies are adopted because America says they need to be adopted. Doctors are not above being bewitched by the maya of America.

If you have been following the discussions I have had over the last week you will believe that the only targets that need to be hit in war are trucks or aircraft shelters and the only way to do them is using "Small Diameter Bombs". Such is the power of American propaganda to catch the imagination of any slightly interested person.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 16 Jul 2015 13:53

Coming to think of it, why the bombs should be in the shape they are made? Why cant it be cylindrical in shape like a missile? For eg., remove the control gadgets and fill it from top to bottom with rocket fuel..like a Aakash with 4 inch dia and 13 ft long will weigh 250 kg and will be much slender than an SDB and more of them can be carried internally or externally. Add controls as you please and you get a precision bomb..