Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2015 17:50

phew finally...a soothing psyops raytheon-certified image.

the wait was long but fruitful in the end.

ideally as in ITvity offices the floor should be raised with a hollow space under it or have ducts underneath to pull wires ... the datacenter 8' tall racks stuffed with servers weigh a lot but still have the raised floor for power cabling and such.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2015 01:24

>>phew finally...a soothing psyops raytheon-certified image.
the wait was long but fruitful in the end.

LOL I swear right? The TATA/L&T pvt facilities know the value of such imagery and use it well..

Heres some more news..Akash Mk2 cleared apparently.

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/XIR1V ... oduct.html

Speaking about the Akash MKII, Bhaskar said the new version will not only differ in range, but also have smart systems with seekers which will have no ground-control interference. The defence ministry has given a mandate to complete this project in three years.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2015 01:30

Even the BEL Akash line for vehicle assembly is well laid out and clean
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d2eP9K2bv1g/T ... /Akash.jpg

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 27 Jul 2015 01:38

Thakur_B wrote:Vijainder K Thakur ‏@vkthakur
Nirbhay missile precise dimensions scoop - Length: 5036-mm Dia: 520-mm Weight would vary with variant 700 to 1100 kg
5:22 PM 21-Jul 2015
https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/623649206926970881

Hmmmmm great, fits in our Submarine torpedo tubes.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2015 02:18

Karan M wrote:TFTA enough for Singha!!

Akash production at BDL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKsB1esUMAAWUgA.jpg:large

Sight for sore eyes. Any chance we could get more of them?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2015 02:33

Rest of the pics are blurred. They seem to be captures from a video.
https://twitter.com/writetake/status/62 ... 89/photo/1
https://twitter.com/writetake/status/62 ... 08/photo/1

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2015 02:40

AKash production unit is also very TFTA
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKIOltvUsAAPsc5.jpg:large

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2015 12:08

Any hint of AKash-2's "brochure" range?

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

Philip wrote:Any hint of AKash-2's "brochure" range?

EXCLUSIVE: Akash Mk-II SAM To Fly In Two Years

...
The Akash Mk-II will be a longer-range, faster and more accurate SAM. Ok, now here's the low-down on the Akash Mk-II. The missile will have an intercept range of 30-35 km, or a little over 10-km more than the Mk-I version. Apart from extending range, the Mk-II project mandate will be to increase accuracy of the missile's guidance system and the fire control system, push up the missile's performance, agility, speed, efficiency and accuracy. This will involve tweaking of almost all major systems, including the missile itself, signal processors etc.
...

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 27 Jul 2015 15:33

srai wrote:
Philip wrote:Any hint of AKash-2's "brochure" range?
EXCLUSIVE: Akash Mk-II SAM To Fly In Two Years
...
The Akash Mk-II will be a longer-range, faster and more accurate SAM. Ok, now here's the low-down on the Akash Mk-II. The missile will have an intercept range of 30-35 km, or a little over 10-km more than the Mk-I version. Apart from extending range, the Mk-II project mandate will be to increase accuracy of the missile's guidance system and the fire control system, push up the missile's performance, agility, speed, efficiency and accuracy. This will involve tweaking of almost all major systems, including the missile itself, signal processors etc.
...

This is confusing. 10 KM + additional range is a configuration of Akash which was envisaged to be an upgraded version of current avatar of Akash with a powerful booster and some aerodynamic improvement. Now they are talking of a version with Seeker which may have a longer range compared MK2 planned earlier with 37 to40 KM range.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2015 15:48

That's a five year old report. Much has changed since then.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2015 17:12

Was Akash meant to be the replacement for the old SA-3 Pechoras? I saw a report where the old SAMs are being upgraded by some country.Will we still retain them for some time or will they be fully replaced by Akash?

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Jul 2015 03:58

Philip wrote:Was Akash meant to be the replacement for the old SA-3 Pechoras? I saw a report where the old SAMs are being upgraded by some country.Will we still retain them for some time or will they be fully replaced by Akash?

SA-3 will be replaced by a combination of Barak-8 MR-SAM and Akash SAM squadrons over the next 10-15 years. AFAIK, a huge percentage of SA-3s in the IAF inventory have exceeded their useful lives.

First Akash missile system to fill gap in air defence

...
Without the anti-aircraft resources needed to protect these VAs/VPs, the outdated Pechora missiles, which began service in 1974 with a designated life of nine years, have been granted repeated extensions. The Russian manufacturers extended the life to 15 years; when they refused any further extensions, the DRDO extended it unilaterally to 21 years. By 2004, only 30 Pechora units of the 60 originally imported were still in service.

On January 15, 2003, the IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy, wrote to the MoD saying that 60 per cent of India’s VAs/VPs could no longer be provided anti-aircraft protection. The IAF’s top officer wrote: “By 2004… terminal defence of VA/VPs would be only notional… We need to import minimal number of systems to meet our national defence needs.”

Seven years later, the roll-out of the Akash from BEL will begin to fill this gap
...

On order:

8 x Akash SAM squadrons
9 x MRSAM squadrons

Total: 17 SR/MR SAM squadrons

Additional being talked about:

8+ x Akash SAM squadrons (this might be Mk.2 variant)

Total (w/additional): 25+ SR/MR SAM squadrons

-------
Added later:

Doing some simple calculations (not factoring VSHORAD), if in 2004 only 40% of VA/VP were being covered by 30 SA-3 units (or 15 SAM squadrons) then a rough estimate would equate to around 75 units of SR/MR SAM (or around 37 SAM squadrons) would be required to provide close to 100% coverage. Repeat orders are a definite. However, with double the range of MRSAM compared to SA-3 it could provide similar coverage area with half the units. My guess would be 18 Akash Mk.1/2 and 9-to-18 MRSAM Mk.1/2 squadrons in total.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 29 Jul 2015 15:10

Pentagon Report: China Deploys MIRV Missile
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/05/china-mirv/

By Hans M. Kristensen

....
.....

The deployment of a MIRVed DF-5 also raises serious questions about China’s strategic relationship with India. The Pentagon report states that in addition to US missile defense capabilities, “India’s nuclear force is an additional driver behind China’s nuclear force modernization.” There is little doubt that Chinese MIRV has the potential to nudge India into the MIRV club as well.

Indian weapons designers have already hinted that India may be working on its own MIRV system and the US Defense Intelligence Agency recently stated that “India will continue developing an ICBM, the Agni-VI, which will reportedly carry multiple warheads.”

If Chinese MIRV triggers Indian MIRV it would deepen nuclear competition between the two Asian nuclear powers and reduce security for both. This calls for both countries to show constraint but it also requires the other MIRVed nuclear-armed states (Britain, France, Russia and the United States) to limit their MIRV and offensive nuclear warfighting strategies.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2015 16:16

Xcpts in this report are taken from Dr.P's BMos book. A must for enthusiasts.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/05/29/mis ... ding[quote]
Mission BrahMos: How India got the world’s most powerful cruise missile
May 29, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

The BrahMos project should be the benchmark for all future joint ventures in defence as it leverages the excellent rapport between India and Russia – at the scientific, academic, military and political levels.

The missile is named after two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. Source: Boris Egorov/RIR

India sucks at making weapons. The history of arms development in India is littered with the debris of numerous failed projects. The Light Combat Aircraft project is 30 years late; the jet combat trainer has been shot down by the air force; the army is not thrilled with the Arjun tank; we can’t even make a decent rifle for our armed forces.

In this backdrop, how did India buck the trend with the BrahMos – the world’s most powerful cruise missile?

Well, first up, it is very likely Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) projects are sabotaged – by politicians and military brass who get kickbacks from defence imports, as well as foreign weapons manufacturers.

At the same time, India’s missile men are a class apart. Because missiles and rockets with a range of over 300 km are not – legally – sold in the international arms bazaar, India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) was given a free hand. The result was a series of short, medium and long range missiles that today form the core of India’s Strategic Forces Command.

Cruising along

The idea to develop an Indian cruise missile became crystallised after the 1991 Gulf War when the American Tomahawk cruise missiles crippled Iraq’s command and communication centres, leaving its armed forces exposed to air attacks. That a few hundred cruise missiles could isolate the 1.2 million strong Iraqi military in the space of a few hours was a wakeup call for India’s defence planners.

In their minds, the memory of the 1971 War – when the US Seventh Fleet had sailed up the Bay of Bengal to strike Indian military targets – was still a raw scar. Back then the Russian Pacific Fleet had arrived posthaste and placed a defensive wall around India. But in the early 1990s, India’s only ally was no longer able to repeat that effort. If the US came after India with Tomahawks, India would probably meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Hypersonic missiles are the future for India and Russia – new BrahMos Chief
Russia’s Su-30 fighters upgraded to carry supersonic cruise missiles

BrahMos Corp CEO A. Sivathanu Pillai writes in his fascinating book ‘The Path Unexplored’ that it was after seeing the Tomahawk’s success that India decided to acquire a precision attack cruise missile. “This was to be our magical first strike weapon,” he writes.

Things kicked off in 1995 when legendary missile man – and later President – A.P.J. Abdul Kalam asked Pillai, then the programme director of IGMDP, to take charge as the CEO of an India-Russia joint venture (JV) that would develop a brand new cruise missile.

Many of Pillai’s colleagues, including senior bureaucrats, were of the opinion that a JV with Russia couldn’t be a success and therefore he should stay away from the project. Also, in the absence of quality requirements – let alone the promise of an order – from the armed forces, it was deemed an extremely risky venture.

There was also the prospect of internal sabotage. As Pillai reveals in his book, there were senior military personnel who wanted to scuttle the BrahMos project by declaring its performance unsatisfactory. Their plan was to continue India’s dependency on imports, which would result in more kickbacks for middlemen.

Missile of the future

The team associated with evolving a cruise missile started looking at various options in terms of propulsion, guidance and control, seeker and configurations. “As per the traditions set for IGMDP we wanted this missile too to be a futuristic missile, best in its class,” Pillai writes.

But how to make the missile futuristic? “The answer came during one of our brainstorming sessions, and it was to simply increase the speed,” he writes. It was basic rocket science – when the speed of attack increases, it automatically reduces the response time of the enemy.

According to Pillai, Russia was chosen because of the “deep rooted relationship” with the country in space research. “The Russian contribution in the development of Indian space research capabilities has been remarkable,” he writes. India’s first satellite Aryabhatta, the remote sensing satellites Bhaskara-1 and Bhaskara-2, and currently operational remote sensing satellites IRS-1A, IRS-1B and IRS-1C were launched by Russian launch vehicles.

The first Indian in space, Rakesh Sharma, spent seven days in earth orbit on a Russian Salyut space station. Russia also provided the cryogenic engine for the Geostationary Launch Vehicle – which will power India’s future manned space missions. India was preparing for its first manned space flight by 2016-17 but the Americans sabotaged the India-Russia cryogenic partnership. Read more on this here and here.

Choosing a Russian partner

NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM), the legendary organisation which developed iconic cruise missiles such as Malakhit and Granit as well as ICBMs and spacecraft, was chosen to work with DRDO on the future cruise missile.

One of the pluses in favour of NPOM was the company had provided crucial assistance in the development of the Akash surface to air missile(?). As well as helping DRDO overcome the problem with Akash’s supersonic engine, NPOM offered solutions in a number of other areas in missile technology. “Mutual understanding among the technical experts of DRDO and NPOM led to confidence building and envisioning of the future,” writes Pillai.

As a key DRDO man, Pillai travelled frequently to Moscow to hold talks with NPOM executives. On one such occasion the discussion moved to the performance of the Tomahawk cruise missile in the two Gulf Wars. Pillai told the Russian team he wanted India to have such a missile – but also that it should be superior to the Tomahawk.

As if on cue, the NPOM team started talking to each other in their language, in hushed voices. After the huddle, one of the team members told Pillai they already possessed a fully developed liquid ramjet engine which could possibly power a missile at supersonic speed. He said NPOM could not develop the missile because development activity had frozen in 1991, following the end of the Soviet Union.

On his next visit to Moscow, in 1993, Pillai met the legendary H. Yefremov, the then director general of NPOM. Yefremov disclosed the Germans had wanted to acquire the supersonic engine technology from Russia but NPOM had rejected the idea. “However, India being a close friend of Russia, it would be possible for Russia to agree for technology transfer and produce these engines in India," Yefremov said. “This would enable India to not only manufacture the engines but also configure a supersonic cruise missile.”

Moscow would have in all likelihood rejected the transfer of such sensitive technology but for Yefremov’s tireless efforts to get approval for the JV.

Pillai was then taken to NPOM’s inner sanctum in Moscow where all the crown jewels of its scientific efforts were kept. Barring the supersonic engine, all the other engines, missiles and spacecraft were covered to maintain secrecy.

High-level parleys

Things now moved quickly and an India-Russia joint feasibility team was set up. During deliberations the team discovered that NPOM’s new engine could be configured for supersonic flight if the two countries put together their technological assets.

The team discussed this possibility with Ronen Sen, Indian ambassador to Russia who suggested that instead of collaborative efforts, India and Russia should go for a JV. Sen wrote a letter to Kalam advising him to work out the JV format with independent status.

The proposal now went to Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, also the Defence Minister. Rao, the prime mover behind India’s economic liberalisation, approved the JV. (It’s interesting to imagine the project’s fate if Manmohan Singh or I.K. Gujral had been the Prime Minister. Or if Mulayam Singh or A.K. Antony had been Defence Minister. It required a leader with cojones to give clearance to such a major project at a time when India’s bank balance was nearly zero.)

In fact, cash was an issue that almost derailed the project. In the backdrop of the post-disintegration chaos that prevailed in Russia in the early 1990s, NPOM was in no position to front up any share capital. “NPOM therefore came up with the idea that they will provide knowledge and technology as their share, to be valued at 50 per cent of the total capital,” writes Pillai. “The remaining 50 per cent required for full development would come as hot currency from the Indian government.”

The original estimate for the JV was $1500 million and India’s share was $750 million. This was not acceptable to the Indian side, which insisted that Russia also put up cash. After numerous visits to Russia by Pillai and his team, the amount was set at a more realistic $250 million. However, DRDO was of the opinion that a JV could be successful only if both sides contributed money in cash as investment. “It became a stalemate,” writes Pillai.

At this point, the new Indian ambassador Satinder K. Lambah suggested a radical solution: the debt repayments being made by India for the billions of rubles in Soviet era credit could form the share capital for the Russian side. This 'out of the box' idea brought big smiles on everyone's face, but first the idea had to be sold to both governments.

After several meetings with India’s Finance Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India, things started looking up on the Indian side. The DRDO team and NPOM representatives then approached the Russian Finance Ministry, where they were greeted by a top bureaucrat, a woman, who laughed at their proposal.

She said: “It was the Soviet Union but now it is the Russian Federation. It was friendship then, hence the rupee-ruble trade adjustments were made. But now for partnership, the dollar is the currency. How is it possible for me to take the debt as an investment?” She asked the team to clear her room.

Having run into a bureaucratic wall, the BrahMos team decided to pull some strings at the political level and got the project greenlighted.

Shareholding blues

Initially, BrahMos was incorporated with DRDO and NPOM holding 49 per cent each and an Indian financial institution holding 2 per cent. But because involving a third party would compromise secrecy, the financial institution was eliminated. The shareholding was now 50.5 per cent for DRDO and 49.5 per cent for NPOM.

The Russian side was keen for the JV to be a private sector company. Had DRDO’s share been 51 per cent, it would have become a public sector company falling under India’s Defence Ministry. “The Russians feared procedural formalities and government controls from the Indian side would delay the operations of the JV,” Pillai writes.

In hindsight, it was one of the best decisions made by an Indian defence enterprise. Free of government interference, BrahMos is today one of the most dynamic armaments companies in India.

There was one last hurdle. Moscow wanted to be sure India had the scientific and industrial depth to absorb a project of such complexity and magnitude, and despatched a specialist committee to India. DRDO selected certain key establishments – in Delhi, Dehradun, Hyderabad and Bangalore – to showcase India’s missile milestones.

“The Russian specialists were awestruck and very happy on seeing our development capabilities, especially in missile technology, guidance and control, software packages, computing capabilities and electronics systems. Their confidence levels shot up to high levels,” Pillai writes.

However, because of political turmoil in Russia in 1996-97, final clearance didn’t come until August 1998. And only in March 1999 was an agreement signed between the two countries.

Although three valuable years were lost, the DRDO-NPOM team wasn’t sitting idle. Basic design and consultancy work took place using the staff assigned to the company by the parent organisations.

Rapport matters

It was because of complete rapport between those at the top echelons in government and the scientific communities of the two countries that BrahMos achieved liftoff. First up, the friendship between Kalam and Yefremov and their belief in their respective teams was a key factor.

Yefremov’s academic stature and his role as a renowned rocket designer helped remove roadblocks and suspicions in the Russian bureaucracy.

Why the BrahMos armed Sukhoi is bad news for India’s enemies

On the Indian side, Kalam never turned down any of Pillai’s proposals. Similarly, when Kalam forwarded a proposal to Prime Minister Rao, the file came back with his approval the same day. This is something unimaginable in India where politicking comes first and national security takes a back seat. In India, even low-level personal assistants can delay projects of vital national interest by sitting on files. Sometimes they expect a bribe to clear a file; on other occasions they are paid by a competitor or foreign agency to block it.

But Rao was the right Prime Minister at the right time. Pillai remembers that while going through the JV documents, the Prime Minister nodded and said: “It is a good idea and if it clicks it has a good future.”
[/quote]

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 29 Jul 2015 18:24

Tao Garu is another unsung hero of India

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2015 21:49

dont worry such people are always reborn in the line of duty...I am sure a child somewhere in India destined for great power is reading a book now and dreaming...

vonkabra · Post by **vonkabra** » 30 Jul 2015 13:46

Any update on the Prahaar? Seems to be a studied silence around it for some time now.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jul 2015 20:06

Is this pinaka? Did we change the layout? Found the link from this article. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 483979.cms

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jul 2015 20:13

Smerch

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 30 Jul 2015 20:39

vonkabra wrote:Any update on the Prahaar? Seems to be a studied silence around it for some time now.

There is silence on Brahmos II as well. Wiki says the design work for most variants completed in 2011, and they expect to deliver in next 5 years(from 2012). Havent heard anything for quite long.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jul 2015 20:44

Thanks Karan M. Since this was listed as pinaka pics and I haven't been keeeping up regularly, perhaps thought something had changed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2015 16:00

RR,BMos-2 the smaller version aka BMos-M?

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 31 Jul 2015 17:04

Philip wrote:RR,BMos-2 the smaller version aka BMos-M?

It is the hypersonic Brahmos, to fly at Mach 5-7. Here is the wiki link. Couldn't find much beyond what is mentioned on Brahmos.com and wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos-II

http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=27

As per wiki Brahmos-M is the smaller version of Brahmos-A, to be fitted on Mig29, and possibly Rafale, Mirage2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos#Brahmos-M

It's timelines are also same as Brahmos II.
I would think that Brahmos-A or M will be prioritized over this. For
1. It gives more options, over current more platforms
2. It is really cutting edge, US, China are still testing,
3. Does it really make a lot of difference on this range for it would reduce the already time of around 5 min( using wiki values 300 Km and 1Km/s=> ) to close to 2-3 min,
4. Probably it would make difference through
4.a. Technological base, for a longer range missile
4.b. Moving targets such as ships
4.c. Seat on high table, as some posters mentioned that after perfecting there might be test bans etc.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jul 2015 17:31

The US is not testing anything in the category of a Brahmos-M nor do they have a requirement for a similar type of weapon given the anti-surface warfare priorities that are likely to come up over the next decade. The only time the US wanted a high speed anti-ship or ground target weapon was when they were making the RATTLRS and that was very different (Turbojet) from the Brahmos concept. The ASuW demands from the USN for a post 2025 weapon are likely going to be a range requirement of 1000-1500 Km and to have that based on a ship and sub launched weapon (and possibly air launched as well) and still get extremely high speed (mach 2+) without going ballistic is too tough a task and risk. The only sub-500 nm ranged weapon they'll get is the LRASM-A, and they have other options of modying the AARGM-ER (150nm range, mach 2) in the future...Other than that, I doubt there is any justification to invest development money in a sub 500 nm weapon given the improvement in networking and situational awareness and given the sort of weapons China has and is looking to get to deny launches from a sub-500nm range.

It would be quite an achievement to develop and operationalize a Mach 5 Scramjet weapon by the middle of next decade, regardless of who does it first. Currently most of the hypersonic scramjet flight records are held by the US research and development teams. If I were to guess a Mach 7 cruise missile COULD be a reality in the 2030-2040 time-frame....The US HSSW (Scramjet) plans call for prototypes of an actual weapon (The Waverider was just a vehicle, not a weapon prototype) to undergo testing and hopefully complete testing around the end of the decade. Technically you could then enter into a full fledged weapons program and deliver a Mach 5 Scramjet weapon in 5-8 years following that, if everything goes well. They are investing $1.2 Billion but hypersonics is an extremely complex field and even though AFRL, NASA, DARPA and hypersonic teams from Boeing and the Skunk works are working on a lot of things at the same time, there are plenty of technical challenges left to be overcome. The one good thing I have read is that once the challenges are overcome the cost to produce a scramjet weapon isn't going to be a lot more different from producing a current supersonic weapon.

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jul 2015 23:13

ranjan.rao wrote:
vonkabra wrote:Any update on the Prahaar? Seems to be a studied silence around it for some time now.
There is silence on Brahmos II as well. Wiki says the design work for most variants completed in 2011, and they expect to deliver in next 5 years(from 2012). Havent heard anything for quite long.

Navy/IAF has bigger need for smaller Ashm that can fit into 21 inch torpedo tubes and can be also deployed on Mig 29k. So brahmos m is bigger priority.

As for Prahaar IA doesn't have much interest in it.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 31 Jul 2015 23:18

If Pinaka-2 with a range of 120 km is being worked upon then Prahaar is not really required. Brahmos-M would be the logical next step.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Aug 2015 01:39

Isn't Pinaka 120-250 same as prahaar?

Prahaar would be an awesome weapon. Weren't we getting rid of all prithvis and changing them out to prahaar? http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 866081.ece

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 01 Aug 2015 03:41

Karan M wrote: Speaking about the Akash MKII, Bhaskar said the new version will not only differ in range, but also have smart systems with seekers which will have no ground-control interference. The defence ministry has given a mandate to complete this project in three years.

Are those 'active' seekers like on Barak-8?

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 01 Aug 2015 13:04

Cybaru wrote:Is this pinaka? Did we change the layout? Found the link from this article. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 483979.cms

The arrangement of missile is like Smearch so they are either smearch or Pinaka 2 arranged in a way like smearch.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 01 Aug 2015 14:03

Arre baba, why smearch in the above pic have to be pinaka. Strange!

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2015 16:12

That is the smerch not pinaka.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Aug 2015 11:25

Indo-Israeli Barak 8 missile to be test-fired this month - Economic Times

India and Israel are likely to test fire this month the long-range surface-to-air Barak 8 missile, jointly developed by the two countries, which can act as a potent shield against incoming missiles, aircraft and drones.

If the test to be done in Israel is successful, another would be conducted on board an Indian ship before September. This, according to defence sources, will pave the way for installation of Barak 8 missiles, an upgraded version of Barak systems both the countries use, on board Indian warships.

The missile had undergone a successful test in Israel last November.

Though initially the missile was to be fired on board an Indian ship, defence sources said it would now be done on board an Israeli ship first.

"Following the last test, the Indian Navy had recommended certain changes which have been incorporated. The coming test will check whether the changes are successful. Following this, a test would be done on board an Indian ship," the sources said.

The Indian ship likely to be used for testing is INS Kolkata.

The launchers and radars to track the missile are already in place.

The test will be conducted against an incoming missile by the Navy.

The missile is being jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries, India's DRDO, Israel's Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure, Elta Systems, Rafael and other companies.

The state-run Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will series-produce the 70 km-range Barak-8, with 32 missiles to be initially fitted onto INS Kolkata.

Barak 8 is being considered to be a major asset for Indian Navy because it would add a potent system designed to destroy any anti-ship missile launched by Pakistani or Chinese navy.

Key to Barak 8's ability to intercept incoming missiles is Israel-made MF-STAR radar system which is capable of simultaneously tracking hundreds of airborne targets to a range of more than 250 kilometers.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 02 Aug 2015 16:56

brar_w wrote:The US is not testing anything in the category of a Brahmos-M nor do they have a requirement for a similar type of weapon given the anti-surface warfare priorities that are likely to come up over the next decade. The only time the US wanted a high speed anti-ship or ground target weapon was when they were making the RATTLRS and that was very different (Turbojet) from the Brahmos concept. The ASuW demands from the USN for a post 2025 weapon are likely going to be a range requirement of 1000-1500 Km and to have that based on a ship and sub launched weapon (and possibly air launched as well) and still get extremely high speed (mach 2+) without going ballistic is too tough a task and risk. The only sub-500 nm ranged weapon they'll get is the LRASM-A, and they have other options of modying the AARGM-ER (150nm range, mach 2) in the future...Other than that, I doubt there is any justification to invest development money in a sub 500 nm weapon given the improvement in networking and situational awareness and given the sort of weapons China has and is looking to get to deny launches from a sub-500nm range.

Apologies if I was not very clear, I meant only hypersonic weapons and not of the Brahmos range. I googled over your post and you are quite right. One thing I did observe differing from your post was that the timelines.
on wiki X51 entry on wiki says

The HSSW could fly in 2020 and enter service in the mid-2020s. It is envisioned to have a range of 500-600 nmi, fly at Mach 5-6, and fit on an F-35 or in the internal bay of a B-2 bomber.
.....
X-51 technology will be used in the High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), a Mach 5+ missile planned to enter service in the mid-2020s.

That said, I am aware that not everything on wiki is correct to the last and such projects can always be delayed, but do mention, if there is more to it.
TIA

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Aug 2015 17:35

deleted

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Aug 2015 17:35

Ranjan, the HSSW is a neat little project with some serious movement in terms of industry positioning. Lockheed bought one of the few hypersonic tunnels in the US because the investments from the Pentagon in hypersonics made that possible from a strategic pov. However, the HSSW will test a prototype by 2018-2020 and a weapons program follows after that. Essentially what the HSSW does is develop a complete system as opposed to just a vehicle. So a seeker, warhead, propulsion and everything would be prototyped. However from what I have read, the performance in terms of speed is around Mach 5 and a Mid 2020's weapon is a fairly doable IOC if everything goes as plan. That 2025 could easily slip by 5 years if things do not. Like I said, look at some of the current hypersonic records with scramjet propulsion..they run into some seconds and the climb to an operational weapon that is fully developed and tested, with a range of 500 nm is not an easy task so there is plenty of risk. And the US is ahead thanks to a string of successful, semi-succesfull, and failed programs in scramjet propulsion especially for tactical systems.

As far as Mach 7 weapon..Thats at least 15-20 years out if not even later. You have to be careful with hypersonic and what is talked about..Pick a trade journal from the 70's and you'd find a reference to hypersonics being a decade out, pick one from the 90's and they are still a decade out..Follow the hypersonic debate at a couple of the last SCITECH's and they are still a decade out.

Here is the HSSW proposal from Lockheed -

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 02 Aug 2015 18:09

As far as Mach 7 weapon..Thats at least 15-20 years out if not even later. You have to be careful with hypersonic and what is talked about..Pick a trade journal from the 70's and you'd find a reference to hypersonics being a decade out, pick one from the 90's and they are still a decade out..Follow the hypersonic debate at a couple of the last SCITECH's and they are still a decade out.

Thanks Brar! for another informative post. OT, but it reminds me of Fusion, which is 30 years away for each of last so many decades.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2015 13:35

More media reports about B-8 to be tested aboard an Israeli ship first,and afterwards aboard an IN warship (Kolkatta).This is because the IN wanted several modifications to be made.As partner in the JV,this test appears to be part of the Israeli side's responsibility.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Aug 2015 15:45

Nick_S wrote:
Karan M wrote: Speaking about the Akash MKII, Bhaskar said the new version will not only differ in range, but also have smart systems with seekers which will have no ground-control interference. The defence ministry has given a mandate to complete this project in three years.
Are those 'active' seekers like on Barak-8?

Yes , quoting FORCE article Karan is reffering

http://www.forceindia.net/MissileFlexing.aspx

The Akash SAM system can engage a wide variety of aerial threats like up to a maximum range of 25 km and up to an altitude of 20 km. It employs command to line of sight guidance and relies on sophisticated radars and control systems to guide the missile to its targets. Elaborating on plans for the Akash Mk 2, Udaya Bhaskar said, “The honourable RM has asked us to develop this in three years and the programme is finally on with the DRDO as the main agency. Planned improvements relate not only to range alone, but there will be a change in the technologies.” The Akash Mk 2 is expected to receive a new missile seeker that will allow it to complete the final intercept phase without assistance from ground radar, for the last five to six km. DRDO will be setting the objectives for the Akash Mk 2 but BDL will assist the effort by providing the missile mock-ups and models for testing requirements.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Aug 2015 19:52

we need a domestic seeker for the Astra, to permit scaling up a little and porting it to Akash mk2.

the ones on AAM are claimed to have a range of 15-20km against fighter size targets. since the Akash is much fatter its aperture and power can both be increased as needed.