Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 21 Oct 2016 14:54

Philip wrote:Since this acquisition will also integrate our own SAMs into an ABM system,posted here.

No, it wont. The Israelis wont allow DRDO to share Green Pine/Swordfish data to Russians for integration. The protocols & standards of the DRDO system is western while S-400 is Russian

The S-400 is CYA for our political leadership.

You see, the Pakistanis have upped the ante stating any cold strike will be countered not be a low yield tactical nuke on Hatf 1/2/3/9 but maybe by a Shaheen strike on Delhi or Mumbai.

The DRDO PAD/AAD/PDV1 program is still some years away from maturity. So S-400 will fill in for the time it takes DRDO to complete development of the indigenous program.

Its a damm costly system - but cheaper than THAAD or Arrow - for our political leadership who what to secure themselves in Delhi.

The only integration both systems will see is via Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), when both systems are concurrently online

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 21 Oct 2016 20:49

maitya wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Oh! They lifted the skirt only a little bit. They are on the second generation of most of these designs. What you are seeing here is the kit for the HSLD (1000lb) bombs which has a diameter of 360 mm. They have also shown us a glimpse of Garuthma: a kit for a 2000 lb bomb of 450 mm. Both of these have a 30 km range. They have both been tested multiple times with pinpoint accuracy. Now, they are working on a 60 km version of Garuthma.
<snip>

Similarly, we came to know of SAAW after it had been flight tested.
<snip>

They are already working on the next generation of SAAW.
<snip>

Then there is Gaaruda which is a winged kit for a 2000lb bomb with a 100 km range. None of know how it looks. That will only be revealed once the skirt is lifted beyond the knees.

How I'm thoroughly confused ... especially when I compare with what is written in this.

It says Garuda is the non-winged glide-bomb and was tested for a 30km range (on both 18th and 19th Aug'16 - and earlier from 2014 onwards as well) - and that Garuthmaa is the 1000Kg winged smart glide bomb was also tested (on 19th Aug'16) for it's maximum 100km range. :-?


And then it goes onto say, that non-winged Garuda would be tested for bigger ranges (up to 100km) in future. :roll:

My mistake onlee. I got Garuda and Garuthmaa reversed.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 21 Oct 2016 23:34

tsarkar wrote:
Philip wrote:Since this acquisition will also integrate our own SAMs into an ABM system,posted here.

No, it wont. The Israelis wont allow DRDO to share Green Pine/Swordfish data to Russians for integration. The protocols & standards of the DRDO system is western while S-400 is Russian

The S-400 is CYA for our political leadership.

You see, the Pakistanis have upped the ante stating any cold strike will be countered not be a low yield tactical nuke on Hatf 1/2/3/9 but maybe by a Shaheen strike on Delhi or Mumbai.

The DRDO PAD/AAD/PDV1 program is still some years away from maturity. So S-400 will fill in for the time it takes DRDO to complete development of the indigenous program.

Its a damm costly system - but cheaper than THAAD or Arrow - for our political leadership who what to secure themselves in Delhi.

The only integration both systems will see is via Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), when both systems are concurrently online


Sir does this mean that once S 400 comes and politics are
Secure we can hit the Pakis ? If so I'm all for it.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby nirav » 22 Oct 2016 03:38

tsarkar wrote:
Philip wrote:Since this acquisition will also integrate our own SAMs into an ABM system,posted here.


The S-400 is CYA for our political leadership.

You see, the Pakistanis have upped the ante stating any cold strike will be countered not be a low yield tactical nuke on Hatf 1/2/3/9 but maybe by a Shaheen strike on Delhi or Mumbai.


Its a damm costly system - but cheaper than THAAD or Arrow - for our political leadership who what to secure themselves in Delhi.


I wouldn't put it that way tsarkar ji.

Mumbais GDP alone is higher than that of the whole of Pakistan. Mumbai and Delhi are Indias top 2 cities with a combined GDP figure which is north of $ 500 Billion..
It would be incorrect to say that the S400 systems costing ~ $ 5 Billion are just for saving the politicians.

IF deployed for both cities, it would be to protect the cities, the crown jewels.

I btw have my doubts about the 5 S-400 systems being used by IAF for defending just Mumbai and Delhi. And that too from a nuke attack that may never come.I think its the doctrine of massive retaliation which gives Delhi,Mumbai and India protection from baki nukes.
Their conventional capabilities however are immense and can be used to enforce no fly zones in certain parts of bakistan.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karthik S » 22 Oct 2016 03:47

And I'd think the politicos will be moved to a secured location away from major cities.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4555
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Oct 2016 07:34

CAn't figure out the S400 purchase unless it is to be used as a super high end SAM system designated to checkmate PAF from day 1. The system essentially covers large swaths of TSP airspace at high altitudes - restricting their fighters etc., to fly lower thereby reducing strike/surveillance ranges. Of course, if such targets try offensive postures by flying lower profiles, they can be handled by the layered system of LRSAM, Akash, Spyder etc. Not to mention point defense fighters. This lowers the defensive burden of the AF, and allows them to engage offensively in TSP airspace requiring fewer air defence type fighters. Perhaps this is one reason for the AF's insistence on "medium" category birds?

Furthermore, an offensive deployment of the S400 would be desirable especially considering that major cities should have received some BMD type coverage via AAD/PAD combo. The S400 iirc, does not provide anything more than the AAD/PAD (other than longer intercepts perhaps thanks to the 400km SAM) in terms of detection and effective engagement ranges.

Could also be that the S400 is required because the indigenous systems is not being produced at a fast enough rate and so the S400 is a stop-gap but urgently required measure.

In a worst case scenario, they have encountered some serious issues with the AAD/PAD combo and so the S400 has been brought in. Not sure.

My feeling is that the first reason is the most likely considering that the purchase of fighters in large numbers has been in a boondoggle and the price is quite restrictive. Also, while the AAD/PAD set up is a pure BMD system, the S400 is more versatile in that it allows engagement of more agile targets such as fighters, surveillance a/c etc. Would be a waste of these capabilities if the S400 were to be restricted to BMD of large cities deep in the hinterland.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Bheeshma » 22 Oct 2016 07:36

The S-400 is long range SAM. It essentialy ensure paki AF is rendered inconsequential. I doubt India would trust a russian BMD over AAD/PDV to defend our cities. Any leak on S-400 from chinese can be very harmful.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2016 07:43

Please allow me to butt in with something that was discussed on BRF long ago.

When Pakistan first wielded or threatened to wield the Nasr as a response to Cold Start people were asking "He we need to have short range tactical nukes as well". But no. The response to a sword is not a sword. It is a shield. The response to Nasr is not a Yindoo Nasr. It a multilayered defence system where both Akash and S-400 fit in.

As Pakistan's air force becomes decrepit - you can expect Pakis to rely more and more on missiles. Mark these works - you heard them here first.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Bheeshma » 22 Oct 2016 08:05

Yup..PAF and PN surface and aviation will become increasingly obsolete and they will rely on missiles and Subs. They are well on their way to turning into another NoKo minus any scientific or technology capability.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby maitya » 22 Oct 2016 09:24

indranilroy wrote:
maitya wrote:How I'm thoroughly confused ... especially when I compare with what is written in this.

It says Garuda is the non-winged glide-bomb and was tested for a 30km range (on both 18th and 19th Aug'16 - and earlier from 2014 onwards as well) - and that Garuthmaa is the 1000Kg winged smart glide bomb was also tested (on 19th Aug'16) for it's maximum 100km range. :-?


And then it goes onto say, that non-winged Garuda would be tested for bigger ranges (up to 100km) in future. :roll:

My mistake onlee. I got Garuda and Garuthmaa reversed.

Ummm ... my "confusion" is slightly more deep actually ... it's wrt the last line that I'd quoted. :(

What I'm confused about is as follows:
So, whatever may be the name is, there exists two kits ... one for 30Km (non winged kit) and another for 100Km (winged).

Now what is all this talk about "upgrading" the non-winged kit to 100Km? Especially when that upgraded-range is being aimed to be same as that of the existing winged version range.
I mean, how does one actually increase the range of a free-fall gravity bomb by a non-winged kit, except from releasing it from a higher altitude (to increase the slant range further)? Especially when there are limitations (pylon separation constraints etc) upto which the wing-let dimensions can be increased*.

And if indeed it's all about releasing from a higher altitude then only thing to really work on is the acquiring-cum-guidance sensors so that it capable for a 100Km acquisition-cum-guidance.
Well, the whole confusion is then, we already have the acquisition-cum-guidance part of the kit available in a winged version of the kit - so what is so difficult in putting it in this non-winged version and be done with it.

I'm surely missing something very fundamental in all these. :oops:

*It can also be safely assumed that for achieving the 30Km range, quite a large amount of the allowable dimension would have been used up - now then how come the range be increased by 3-fold.
Last edited by maitya on 22 Oct 2016 09:59, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 22 Oct 2016 09:57

shiv wrote:Please allow me to butt in with something that was discussed on BRF long ago.

When Pakistan first wielded or threatened to wield the Nasr as a response to Cold Start people were asking "He we need to have short range tactical nukes as well". But no. The response to a sword is not a sword. It is a shield. The response to Nasr is not a Yindoo Nasr. It a multilayered defence system where both Akash and S-400 fit in.

As Pakistan's air force becomes decrepit - you can expect Pakis to rely more and more on missiles. Mark these works - you heard them here first.


Problem is shields have to be all over while these cheap nasr type things keep raising the cost n fold for a poir country. The response to nasr is

... strikes across the border after each atrocity with airpower and missiles
... going after tsp elites who run these things
... a declared first strike policy and resumption of periodic tests

Thats all. No trillion dollar Shields needed.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 22 Oct 2016 16:01

shiv wrote:Please allow me to butt in with something that was discussed on BRF long ago.

When Pakistan first wielded or threatened to wield the Nasr as a response to Cold Start people were asking "He we need to have short range tactical nukes as well". But no. The response to a sword is not a sword. It is a shield. The response to Nasr is not a Yindoo Nasr. It a multilayered defence system where both Akash and S-400 fit in.

As Pakistan's air force becomes decrepit - you can expect Pakis to rely more and more on missiles. Mark these works - you heard them here first.


In this context I see what you mean, but you cant fight with a shield alone. To defend effectively you need a sword and a shield. As Gen Bakshi very eloquently puts its 'have you seen fighting solely with a shield. The only person who did it died - Abhimanyu in Mahabharat'. It is insane to have a strategey that is purely defensive. If your shield deflects the first sword attack and we respond with our sword then I am with you. But if your shield means we will not respond then its insane. To me having a multi layered defence is another reason why we can be more offensive.
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 22 Oct 2016 16:04, edited 2 times in total.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 22 Oct 2016 16:02

Singha wrote:
shiv wrote:Please allow me to butt in with something that was discussed on BRF long ago.

When Pakistan first wielded or threatened to wield the Nasr as a response to Cold Start people were asking "He we need to have short range tactical nukes as well". But no. The response to a sword is not a sword. It is a shield. The response to Nasr is not a Yindoo Nasr. It a multilayered defence system where both Akash and S-400 fit in.

As Pakistan's air force becomes decrepit - you can expect Pakis to rely more and more on missiles. Mark these works - you heard them here first.


Problem is shields have to be all over while these cheap nasr type things keep raising the cost n fold for a poir country. The response to nasr is

... strikes across the border after each atrocity with airpower and missiles
... going after tsp elites who run these things
... a declared first strike policy and resumption of periodic tests

Thats all. No trillion dollar Shields needed.


+ 100.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2016 17:41

Singha wrote:Problem is shields have to be all over while these cheap nasr type things keep raising the cost n fold for a poir country. The response to nasr is

... strikes across the border after each atrocity with airpower and missiles
... going after tsp elites who run these things
... a declared first strike policy and resumption of periodic tests

Thats all. No trillion dollar Shields needed.


There are two arguments I have heard from nonprolotullahs. One is that "anti missile defences are destabilizing" - which is the exact argument made by Singha

The other argument is that they are expensive and ineffective. Let me address both these and other points

If we are a "poor country" we stand no chance of going on in this game without getting poorer. This is certainly not going to make a poor country richer.

Strikes across the border is definitely a good idea. A formal war with declared aims would be a better idea - like taking back PoK

Going after TSP elites who run these things sounds like a good idea, but the elites have handed the baton to Islamic militias in Pakistan and we definitely have to target madrassas and clerics. Pakistan made this a religious war long ago.We have been too secular as a nation to admit it. Funnily enough many Indian Muslims by and large understand, but our seculars will give away Kashmir and other parts of India unless we have a definite game plan.

The idea of nuclear test resumption and first strike policy actually makes me laugh. To me it looks like a man standing outside a girls hostel waving his penis at the girls. Either we start war and start using nukes or stop pretending that we are going to use them. Use them when? When we are not even attacking Pakistan a few tests will only cause ROTFL.

Whatever we do, if we start war we will have to attack Pakistan, for which we need missiles. But Pakistan will hit back with aircraft and missiles, for which we must plan for some defence. For all the arguments made about missile defence, Israel has set up a shield which has actually shot down missiles, The US is moving missile shields into South Korea. Russia and China are setting up missile defences. Indians seem to be the only ones who claim poverty as a reason for building up offensive forces but not defence. That is what Pakistan and Korea are also doing - but if push comes to shove I think both Pakistan and NoKo will have their butts kicked by nations whose offensive power is backed by a robust defensive capability with less bluster and rhetoric.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby K Mehta » 22 Oct 2016 17:49

We are entering an era where our economy and technological prowess is going to be a major factor.
With induction of BMD, we are going to make it a costlier affair in respect of number of missiles/warheads needed to hit the cities protected by BMD or make the adversary target other cities.

Higher number of missiles mean higher number of crew and also more money for maintenance and salaries. More nasrs mean more resources spent on non-strategic targets. That works in favour of India.

With systems like S400 even nofly zones can be enforced on a large area of bakistan.

Besides the shields work against China or even US for that matter, as we become a bigger global player. Please see the larger picture and not just be baki focused. No first strike and massive retaliation is our doctrine.

PS shiv, I hope you have read that BMD book Xerox I had given you. :D

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4039
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kit » 22 Oct 2016 18:27

shiv wrote:Please allow me to butt in with something that was discussed on BRF long ago.

When Pakistan first wielded or threatened to wield the Nasr as a response to Cold Start people were asking "He we need to have short range tactical nukes as well". But no. The response to a sword is not a sword. It is a shield. The response to Nasr is not a Yindoo Nasr. It a multilayered defence system where both Akash and S-400 fit in.

As Pakistan's air force becomes decrepit - you can expect Pakis to rely more and more on missiles. Mark these works - you heard them here first.


Yes indeed .. preparation for a massive retaliation is only option ..taking out all operational command centers and the military leadership in response to a massed cruise missile strike .. no half measures

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JayS » 22 Oct 2016 18:43

maitya wrote:
indranilroy wrote:My mistake onlee. I got Garuda and Garuthmaa reversed.

Ummm ... my "confusion" is slightly more deep actually ... it's wrt the last line that I'd quoted. :(

What I'm confused about is as follows:
So, whatever may be the name is, there exists two kits ... one for 30Km (non winged kit) and another for 100Km (winged).

Now what is all this talk about "upgrading" the non-winged kit to 100Km? Especially when that upgraded-range is being aimed to be same as that of the existing winged version range.
I mean, how does one actually increase the range of a free-fall gravity bomb by a non-winged kit, except from releasing it from a higher altitude (to increase the slant range further)? Especially when there are limitations (pylon separation constraints etc) upto which the wing-let dimensions can be increased*.

And if indeed it's all about releasing from a higher altitude then only thing to really work on is the acquiring-cum-guidance sensors so that it capable for a 100Km acquisition-cum-guidance.
Well, the whole confusion is then, we already have the acquisition-cum-guidance part of the kit available in a winged version of the kit - so what is so difficult in putting it in this non-winged version and be done with it.

I'm surely missing something very fundamental in all these. :oops:

*It can also be safely assumed that for achieving the 30Km range, quite a large amount of the allowable dimension would have been used up - now then how come the range be increased by 3-fold.


While I think 3-fold increase to 100km for non-winged bomb looks too much to digest, i think they can boost it to something like 50-60km somehow. My guess it while the standard range would remain 30km, in certain scenarios it could be possible to throw the bomb farther and the would like to test that option.

IMO the increased range will be on the account of both higher altitude of launch and higher speed at the launch time. When a Su-30MKI flies with 2x2000lb bombs it would have envelop limitations in terms of both speed and altitude and it could impart only so much of the energy to the bomb (both PE and KE) while with only one 2000lb it could give more punch to it enabling it to glide farther.

I read somewhere typical launch altitude for guided bombs is 9-10km and it would be subsonic in most probability. So it is possible that at this standard conditions the range is 30km while if the same bomb is launched at say 15km and higher speed, (even supersonic if possible) it could glide to 60km.

But 100km looks little too much.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2016 04:06

JayS, For concrete/hard target penetration the velocity at target is supersonic.

ADA had a tender for simulation of target penetrations with HSLD.

Indranil do they need all those control surfaces for the kit? 3 sets?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 23 Oct 2016 10:58

One is that "anti missile defences are destabilizing" - which is the exact argument made by Singha

....i said nothing about destab no need to imagine it.

Calculate the cost of a thaad plus arrow type credible shield vs offensive weapons. We dont hv a dollar note printing machine to fund both now. We need to fix nirbhay and gets 1000s into hands of our forces before hot air on abm shields .... also garuda and garuthma kids

Have a penis first before flaunting a shield

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kashi » 23 Oct 2016 11:02

Singha wrote:Have a penis first before flaunting a shield


Can't we have both at the same time? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 11:07

Singha wrote:Have a penis first before flaunting a shield

Having one is one point. Using it will make a sharper point.

Of course the logical fallacy being thrown at me here is something that I must point out. Having a missile defence shield does not mean that we must not have missiles. Any accusation that I implied something like that is like saying that a man who asks for trousers to be worn is asking that gloves should not be worn. Let's get that point covered.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 11:11

Kashi wrote:
Singha wrote:Have a penis first before flaunting a shield


Can't we have both at the same time? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Precisely. In fact if missiles are so cheap that Pakistan can get them, then we can afford missiles and a shield. The argument that "we are poor" should not be used to say "we can afford only missiles no shield or only shield no missiles."

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 11:24

Singha wrote:Problem is shields have to be all over while these cheap nasr type things keep raising the cost n fold for a poir country.


Lets look at what the literature says:
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/upload ... h_0001.pdf
ABM system deployment was “destabilizing” in two respects: first, it would stimulate arms racing by each side to overcome the defenses of the other, and second, in a crisis, it could provoke a first strike by the side that did not have ABM systems. McNamara argued that “arms race stability ”
and “crisis stability” could both be preserved, ironically, if both sides were defenseless against nuclear attack. This reasoning gave birth to the notion of “mutual assured destruction” as the bedrock of deterrence in the nuclear age.

<snip>

There was then—and remains today—a large cadre of specialists who believe the entire notion of being defenseless in the nuclear age is totally misguided and highly dangerous. When the Soviet Union built up extensive nuclear forces in the 1970s and early 1980s, with the ABM Treaty in force, critics pointed to this evidence to support their case. Arms race stability, they argued, was in no way assured by being defenseless. Moreover, Paul Nitze and others claimed that the United States was in mortal danger of a “window of vulnerability” in which the Soviet Union might launch a “disarming first strike” against U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range aircraft, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Being defenseless did not promote crisis stability either, it was argued

<snip>

What was unanticipated was the effect of the Persian Gulf War on the logic of missile defense. Saddam Hussein used Scud B missiles to attack U.S. forces and allies in Saudia Arabia and Israeli civilian targets. As a result, it became widely accepted across the political spectrum that what was needed was not space-based defenses against a Soviet threat, but land and sea-based defenses against regional missile threats.

..read it all

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 23 Oct 2016 12:41

Amrika is deploying large numbers of the inocuous looking but smart lrasm jassm er types with long range to overload the defensive abilities of cheen aaw ships ..how many vls tubes they need for a defensive sam.

Likewise amrika never invested much in large sam systems but went for vast nos of attack aircraft and munitions.

Now they are playing at limited scale nd vast cost to deter irbm armed adversaries and limited icbm shots like noko going ballistic.

I think our planners have put aad and pad on back burner or system is facing difficulty for ioc hence nothing is online after a decade of tests.

I m just being realistic..its great to have both..but for now we have neither a massive inventory of attack or defence and getting ourself into attack dog mode is more gettable in timeline and tech curve.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 23 Oct 2016 13:43

We need both offensive and defensive system and ABM system works best when used as a backup to first strike which can devastate most of foe offensive system and what ever offensive system is left that can be taken care to some extent by ABM system , That does not mean that ABM can be 100 % effective even if enemy 40-50 % offensive system is destroyed in first strike and says ABM system can still intercept 40-50 % of enemy BM , with 50 % of BM left we still end up taking far less hit.

If used in purely defensive system which means ABM would first intercept enemys first strike and then aid in our 2nd strike it would be at disadvantage , Lets say in real time war like situation enemys anti-ABM measures on BM can reduce the capability of ABM system by 30-40 % and our own ABM system intercept potential is reduced from says 70 % of its advertised value to 40 % due to unforeseen issues with ABM when dealing with real time problems sort of surprise of war , then we might loose significant first strike potential and ABM not working to its full potential or massive degradation of its potential because of complexity of ABM interception would mean military planner would have less faith in such system.

My POV is best to use ABM system with first strike against any potential enemy to improve our own strike potential and to improve our own ABM chances of intercepting the left over even with degraded or unforeseen issues or complexity involved with ABM interception.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2016 14:55

Likewise amrika never invested much in large sam systems but went for vast nos of attack aircraft and munitions.


That is a threat based difference. Simply put, there is no threat to the homeland that requires very long range SAM's. The threat that does exist is strategic and therefore the limited capability to fend off against NoKO missiles in the future.

The Medium/Long range Army system is the Patriot and with it they have emphasized magazine depth compared to long range. One example of this is the fact that the GEM-T, the 160km (TVM limited range) ranged weapon is really hitting the end of its development road while the much shorter ranged (though far more capable), PAC-3 was chosen for the path ahead given its H2K enabled high magazine depth (up to 16 missiles per launcher for the standard -3's). At best the new radar will give them the ability to lob a GEM-T at say 200km but there are really no plans to replace that weapon since 4 a launcher is really not optimal in a raid like scenario that they expect both in the Middle East and the Pacific.

This is largely driven by the needs arising form the system which are to protect forward deployed troops and infrastructure and not provide coverage to vast, fixed geographic areas such as cities, population centers, ports etc. The Army also deploys the THAAD which is a long-range BMD system (THAAD ER will extend the range by up to 3X and the defended area by 9-12X). Similarly the SM3 (not an army system, but used from land) enables very large coverage (AEGIS Ashore) - thousands of km can be protected form long range ballistic missiles using the newer block variants.

The Gulf War exposed a capability gap when fending off against saturation attacks from ballistic missiles that were expected to proliferate and get significantly more accurate (and this has occurred). This directly led to the ERINT and the PAC-3 (that was designed with highly capable short ranged ballistic missiles in mind) and now the MSE which while still in a small form factor (the standard launcher can pack something like a dozen of the larger ones) actually extends the range to the smaller MRBM's (around 1100 km ranged weapons) territory.

Unlike the US-Army, the Navy has required fleet protection from distance (the carrier's can't be everywhere) and therefore they have had a far greater need for long range sensors and shooters. The SPY-1 and SM2 and now the SPY-1/AMDR and SM6 combination provided/provides that. The SM3 family does the same when assigned to providing ABM coverage to vast swaths of the ocean or even land given its footprint. Unless the US-Army thinks the USAF is not going to be able to provide air-superiority to it in the future, they are unlikely to invest in long range anti-air capability since given the current threats doing so would run counter to the the capability required to deal with the sort of threats they are likely to face. Cruise missiles are and are expected to proliferate in the next few decades much the same way ballistic missiles have in the past. This actually emphasizes sensors and shorter ranged/cheaper weapons to deal with these systems and their offshoots which blur the lines b/w a UAV and a missile. The cheaper the threat gets while still remaining credible the more and more investment into cheaper non-kinetic solutions come into play. You can't be shooting down sub $100,000 drones with half a million dollar missiles (this assumes a sidewinder)..

In case of India, both the major threats share a long border and both offensive and defensive scenarios involve direct anti-air, and anti-missile threats to the homeland.
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Oct 2016 15:36, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JayS » 23 Oct 2016 15:34

ramana wrote:JayS, For concrete/hard target penetration the velocity at target is supersonic.

ADA had a tender for simulation of target penetrations with HSLD.

Indranil do they need all those control surfaces for the kit? 3 sets?


Ramana Sir, I meant Aircraft speed. Most aircrafts can't go supersonic with bigger bombs on-board.

One fin set - middle one of the dumb bomb. Rear one is the electromechanical actuated fin sets for attitude control. Nose fins for balancing lift centre, I suppose.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 23 Oct 2016 20:45

Consider the news of range increase for Brahmos to what Brahmos CEO said last year of using existing Ramjet engine to improve its speed to ~ Mach 5 ( Not to be confused with pure scramjet engine that will take longer time )

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/ind ... 7LU2N.html

“We have a two-pronged approach to exploit the hypersonic realm – upgrading the existing BrahMos engine to achieve Mach 5+ speed in three to five years and simultaneously working on a pure hypersonic engine to breach Mach 7 in five-seven years,” Mishra said.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2016 10:36

maitya wrote:What I'm confused about is as follows:
So, whatever may be the name is, there exists two kits ... one for 30Km (non winged kit) and another for 100Km (winged).

Now what is all this talk about "upgrading" the non-winged kit to 100Km? Especially when that upgraded-range is being aimed to be same as that of the existing winged version range.
I mean, how does one actually increase the range of a free-fall gravity bomb by a non-winged kit, except from releasing it from a higher altitude (to increase the slant range further)? Especially when there are limitations (pylon separation constraints etc) upto which the wing-let dimensions can be increased*.

And if indeed it's all about releasing from a higher altitude then only thing to really work on is the acquiring-cum-guidance sensors so that it capable for a 100Km acquisition-cum-guidance.
Well, the whole confusion is then, we already have the acquisition-cum-guidance part of the kit available in a winged version of the kit - so what is so difficult in putting it in this non-winged version and be done with it.

I'm surely missing something very fundamental in all these. :oops:

*It can also be safely assumed that for achieving the 30Km range, quite a large amount of the allowable dimension would have been used up - now then how come the range be increased by 3-fold.


No, you are not missing anything. The false reporting has only added to misinformation. It is simple. First, let us fix the nomenclature. There are three kinds of kits: ones with small fixed wing, extended fixed wing and foldable wings. The small fixed wings like Garuda have a range of about 30 km. The extended wings like the Spice-2000 look-alikes will have a range of 50-60 km and the foldable wing kits have a range of about 100 kms.

And you are right, large bombs with fixed extended wings is a large store and must be placing restrictions on flight envelop and stores that can be loaded on the nearby stores.

Image

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2016 11:03

Ramana sir, only the midbody wings are for lift and those sizes must have been worked out. The wings at the back are actuated and for directional control. The small ones in the front are for stability.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JayS » 24 Oct 2016 19:17

Ohh I totally missed the fact that the middle set it part of the rear part of the kit. :oops:

Hmm, so, Spice-2000 has this three finest setup while Spice-1000 has folded wings. Both have range of about 60km.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/4/924.pdf

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 26 Oct 2016 03:42

JayS and Indranil, Thanks a lot for the huge clarifications.
Earlier Sudarshan did not have the mid wings. It had only two set of wings: forward and aft similar to Paveway.

And didn't have roll control.

Now the HSLD wing kit is based on the SPICE and uses three sets of wings.
The mid wings are for stability like in the dumb bomb.
The fore and aft controls need much less steering power.
And by using this configuration developed for 2000 lb i.e. 1 tonne, HSLD has lot of margin

--- Got the Garuthma ref and the other heavy one.

So are SPICE versions.


Where is the Griffin kit in all this?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 26 Oct 2016 13:58

ramana wrote:Earlier Sudarshan did not have the mid wings. It had only two set of wings: forward and aft similar to Paveway.

And didn't have roll control.

The bolded part is not correct. Sudarshans control was from the actuated forewings. One could always deflect all of them in a manner which created control forces which acted against the roll. The problem was that the vortices shed by these forewings were interacted with the aftwings and generating aerodynamic forces that were negating these control forces. It was leading to too much wobble. They wanted to make the aft wings free floating so that they can rotate out of this vortices. However, further development of Sudarshan was shelved.

ramana wrote:Now the HSLD wing kit is based on the SPICE and uses three sets of wings.
The mid wings are for stability like in the dumb bomb.
The fore and aft controls need much less steering power.
And by using this configuration developed for 2000 lb i.e. 1 tonne, HSLD has lot of margin

One of the HSLD (1000lbs) kits tested this far has foldable wings which accord a standoff range of 100 kms. We have not seen a picture of this yet.

Everything else has a 30 km range. They have no wings for lift and the tail unit contain all-moving fins for control
Image
Image
And (??)
Image

There is tender by DRDO for a 2000 lb bomb kit which is very similar to the spice 2000 layout. The tail unit has fixed wings other than the actuated fins. These provide lift and extend the standoff range from 30 kms to about 60 kms. I am very sure that something very similar is in development for the HSLD as well.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4039
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kit » 26 Oct 2016 14:56

Just curious .. which one can by pass a nuclear environment ..assuming a couple kilotons has gone off and the aircraft has "nuclear hardened " electronics .. would a glide bomb like this one or a cruise missile be able to make a trip to next target ? .. Do cruise missiles have radiation hardened electronics ? esp the seeker ??

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2016 00:03

Indranil, Thanks for the critique of the statement on roll control. If I had said 'inadequate roll control' wouldn't have got this lesson!
its amazing they can get 30kms from aft fins. I don't see a nose mounted seeker in the picture of the chrome yellow body. Does it mean its INS-Satellite guided?

Kit, That area is very touchy to discuss anywhere in the world.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 27 Oct 2016 01:16

I think this 30km range is relative to launch parameters of weapon, i.e. Speed/altitude/weather.

They seem desi versions of JDAM, wih similar specifications.


Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Oct 2016 13:54

^ Posting here in full

On Contrary to Indian media reports , that India and Russia will only enhance BrahMos range in its next variant. Indian and Russian officials who meet on sidelines of Intergovernmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation on 26th October have agreed to double current range of BrahMos from 290 km to 600 km in all existing BrahMos missiles already inducted into Indian Armed forces. India’s entry into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), negates need to maintain further cap on BrahMos range to 290 km and all BrahMos variants like Land attack based version developed for Indian Army and Airforce ,Anti-ship attack version for Indian Navy or Air launched version of BrahMos will all have enhanced 600km range . Defence Analyst Ranesh Rajan believes range limitation cap was eyewash since Russia or India ever disclosed how a missile based on 600 km Russian P-800 Oniks Supersonic cruise missile had half its range even when missile dimension of both missiles was same . Rajan speaking to idrw.org confirmed that few trials of BrahMos with 600km range might be needed soon to validate all onboard sensors to check if missile performance remains same after the enhanced range . Speculation among Defence Analyst was that BrahMos range was kept under 290 due to software which could cut off fuel after it reached 290 kms but many other believed that smaller fuel tanks could have been used to limit its range but all did agree that both restrictions if ever were imposed by Russia could have been easily overcome by India, which has worked on missile for nearly two decades.

idrw.org . Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website , Kindly don't paste our work in other websites http://idrw.org/wink-handshake-india-ru ... nventory/# .

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2016 18:27

A couple more reports of the future of BMos.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17358/ ... Bc9ZdJ96M8
Russian, India To Co-Develop Miniature Version Of BrahMos Missiles
Our Bureau02:05 PM, October 14, 20162100 viewsMr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, CEO Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, CEO - A +
India and Russia are likely to sign a formal contract to jointly develop a miniature version of the Brahmos missile that could have multiple capabilities, including agile cross border strikes to destroy infrastructure of terrorists.
An agreement for the new version of the missile will be signed at the bilateral meet with Russia in Goa between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin, and it will be the first major upscaling of the Brahmos joint venture signed in 1998.
The new version of the Brahmos would be a much smaller version of the 300 km range cruise missile, Economic Times reported today.
Besides applications on ground, in submarines as well as an air launched version, a very special version of the new missile has been conceptualized, an official said.
This portable version can be operated by a team of three-man team.
Further, a work share agreement on the co-development of a fifth generation fighter aircraft is also finalised, senior officials have confirmed.
Russia and Indian scientists had begun work on compact version of BrahMos missile in 2014. During that time, Head of BrahMos Aerospace Sivathanu Pillai had said that the length of the rocket could be 6 metres, and its diameter 0.5 metres. It can reach speeds of 3.5 times the speed of sound and carry a warhead weighing 200 to 300 kilograms, he added.
“We are faced with a challenge of reducing the rocket’s mass, so that it can be integrated with a variety of platforms, including the equipment of the Indian fifth-generation fighter with it, which is being developed jointly by India and Russia,” Pillai was quoted as saying by Russia Beyond the Headlines‎.


http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17413/ ... Bc-JtJ96M8
India-Russia To Provide Brahmos Missile With Aircraft-Carrier Busting Capability
Our Bureau10:09 AM, October 20, 20161981 viewsIndia-Russia to test air-launched Brahmos in December this year (Image: i.ytimg.com) India-Russia to test air-launched Brahmos in December this year (Image: i.ytimg.com) - A +
India and Russia are looking to provide the jointly developed air-launched Brahmos missile with aircraft-carrier busting capability from extended ranges.
The first test of the Brahmos launched from a specially modified Su-30MKI is slated to happen in December this year. The test involves hitting a warship target in the Bay of Bengal at an angle of 65 degrees. But this capability would not enough to stop an aircraft carrier of over 60,000 tonnes. "Carriers have sealable compartments designed to survive multiple hits from anti-ship missiles," a missile scientist was quoted as saying by India Today Thursday.
India will conduct another test in the Phase 2 of the Brahmos missile next year. The missile will be fitted with a modified radar seeker that can lock onto a moving aircraft carrier and plunge onto its decks in a near 90-degree death dive. The deck of a large aircraft carrier-nearly 300 metres long and 75 metres wide-presents the largest available target for a homing cruise missile's radar seeker, the report stated.
"The sheer kinetic energy of the missile travelling at nearly three times the speed of sound and the high explosive warhead will destroy the aircraft carrier," a scientist says.
The development comes amidst reports of China’s aircraft carrier program. The Chinese PLA Navy’s first home-made aircraft carrier is likely to be seaworthy by the year end and play host to 40-50 aircraft and an Active Phased Array Radar (APAR) radar .
China is three to five years away from launching its second aircraft carrier, the first such ship developed domestically
.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Pratyush » 31 Oct 2016 19:59

What the current Brahmos cannot kill carrier ?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests