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.
Locked
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Philip »

Why we desperately need genuine strat./tactical bombing capability,which is a great hole in the IAF's capability vis-avis China,etc. Possession of such a capability could enable us to raise the level of attrition beyond the capabilities of our mortal enemies and also below the N-threshold.
The aircraft will in a crisis also carry our primary air-launched N-weapons,their primary task.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ed-for-you
World’s biggest bombs: India’s SPICE no match for America’s MOAB or Russian FOAB
INDIA Updated: Apr 14, 2017 12:03 IST
Rahul Singh
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Less than three months after Donald Trump took over as President, an MC-130 aircraft operated by the United States Air Force Special Operations Command dropped one of the biggest conventional bombs in country’s arsenal in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday.

Deployed by the US military for the first time in combat, the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) is one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the possession of any military worldwide. The 21,000-lb MOAB’s sheer destructive power has earned it the nickname ‘Mother of All Bombs’.

Neither India nor Pakistan nor even China possesses non-nuclear bombs that are in the league of MOAB, developed in the early 2000s. In fact, their stockpile doesn’t come anywhere close to MOAB-like munitions.

Read | US drops GBU-43 bomb in Afghanistan: What we know about the ‘mother of all bombs’

The rare strike against Islamic State fighters with a weapon of this size has turned the spotlight on the world’s biggest and largest contemporary non-nuclear bombs, primarily held only by the militaries of Russia and the US.

Here’s a quick look at some of these deadly air-delivered monster munitions whose efficiency and power almost match nuclear weapons, and the smaller bombs that the air forces of India, China and Pakistan hold in their inventories:

Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power: Also known as the ‘Father of All Bombs’ (FOAB), it is the Russian answer to the American bomb. Moscow successfully tested the weapon in 2007; four years after the US developed the MOAB. It is reportedly the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb, capable of unleashing 44 tons of explosives compared to 11 tons in the GBU-43 MOAB. At 15,650 lb, the FOAB is lighter than the American bomb but the former’s significantly higher blast yield makes it far more lethal.

GBU-43 MOAB: Designed to destroy underground facilities, caves and tunnels, the US had developed the GPS-guided bomb for the 2003 invasion of Iraq but it was never used in combat until Thursday evening. Just like the Russian bomb, the 30-foot MOAB detonates before hitting the ground and causes unthinkable destruction by sending deadly shockwaves up to a distance of over a mile in all directions. The GBU-43 MOAB, however, is not the heaviest conventional munition in the American arsenal.

GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator: Known by its acronym MOP, the 30,000-lb American bomb is perhaps the heaviest conventional weapon in the world. However, the bunker buster bomb’s explosive power doesn’t match that of the MOAB or the FOAB. Manufactured by US defence giant Boeing, the GBU-57A/B MOP is designed to obliterate underground nuclear facilities and deeply buried enemy targets.

GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator: The air forces of Israel and South Korea have the 5,000-lb GBU-28 bunker buster munitions supplied by the US in their inventories. The bombs were deployed by the USAF during Operation Desert Storm to carry out strikes against Iraqi bunkers, military installations and high value strategic targets in 1991. The GBU-28, a variant of the Paveway III bomb, can reportedly blast through six metres of concrete.

Read more

Trump says he ordered Syria missile strike during dessert with Chinese President Xi

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad says news of gas attack ‘100% fabrication’
GBU-24 Paveway II bombs: The French Air Force’s Rafale omni-role fighters can carry a number of bombs from the US Paveway family of munitions. The heaviest air-to-surface conventional weapon the fighter can be equipped with is the GBU-24 Paveway II 2,000-lb laser-guided bomb.

INDIA

SPICE: The Israel-manufactured SPICE (smart precise impact and cost effective) bomb is the biggest conventional bomb that can be delivered by the Indian Air Force. Manufactured by Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Ltd, the 2000-lb precision guided bombs are used on the French-origin Mirage 2000 fighters.

The IAF’s Jaguar deep-strike penetration aircraft can be fitted with 1,000-lb bombs for destroying the enemy’s ammunition dumps during combat. In one configuration, a Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter can carry 26 bombs of 550-lb class to destroy a concentration of enemy armour and personnel. The fighter can also carry 1,000-lb HSLD (high speed, low drag) bombs to destroy enemy airfields. Indian fighter planes can also drop indigenously produced 1,000-lb bombs fitted with Israel Aircraft Industries-produced Griffin laser-guided systems

CHINA AND PAKISTAN

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has a variety of conventional bombs ranging in the 500 lb to 3,000-lb class. Most of these general purpose bombs have been developed by the China’s North Industries Corporation. Most of the designs are reportedly based on bombs earlier imported from Russia.

Some of the designs also reportedly draw inspiration from the US Mk 80/82/83/84 bombs. Some other bombs in the Chinese inventory are also suspected to have been copied from Western designs. The conventional bombs with Pakistan Air Force are in the 250 lb to 2,000-lb class, with the design again based on the US Mk 80 series bombs and mated to laser guided systems of American origin. Former IAF vice chief Air Marshal KK Nohwar told HT on Friday, “India, China and Pakistan largely have a similar stockpile of lighter non-nuclear bombs. It’s nowhere close to the mega bombs that the Russians and the Americans can deploy in combat.”
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14780
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Aditya_V »

tandav wrote:Why does it need a initial protective nose cap... I have never been able to figure it out
They are directional thrusters which push the missile in the required direction and then drop off
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Indranil »

Philip wrote: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ed-for-you
World’s biggest bombs: India’s SPICE no match for America’s MOAB or Russian FOAB
INDIA Updated: Apr 14, 2017 12:03 IST
Rahul Singh
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Just to be clear, we are saying we would be flying a C-130 into PAF/PLAAF airspace with this bomb, and drop it where?
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by jamwal »

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:^^^
If I may offer a guess....

All of these missiles are canisterized, and they are expelled from the canister before the engine ignites. This is done by a "gas generator" system which pushes the missile up and out of the canister. This only works because of the nose-cap, which works like a stopper or cork on a bottle -- to contain the high pressure gas -- and give the ejection impulse time to throw the missile out of the canister. Once the missile is thrown clear of the canister, the need for the nose cap is gone, so it is separated from the missile and rocketed out of the flight path, prior to main engine (or booster) ignition.

Just my two paise (though I'm no kind of rocket scientist).
Neither am I a scientist, but push for the missile is from bottom. Gases push the missile out by pushing on it (via a wooden round ?) below it. A lot of canisterised missiles like SAMs and ballistic ones like Agni don't have this cap.
Aditya_V wrote:
tandav wrote:Why does it need a initial protective nose cap... I have never been able to figure it out
They are directional thrusters which push the missile in the required direction and then drop off
Seems more likely.
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Bheeshma »

True but the K-4 nose cap is different. Though in this case it may be for the thrusters to get that 80 deg turn.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by jamwal »

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ed-for-you
World’s biggest bombs: India’s SPICE no match for America’s MOAB or Russian FOAB
INDIA Updated: Apr 14, 2017 12:03 IST
Rahul Singh
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Just to be clear, we are saying we would be flying a C-130 into PAF/PLAAF airspace with this bomb, and drop it where?
:mrgreen:

In nnot too distant future, expect Cheeni and Pakis to claim that they have 100000 pound bomb and start 100s of pages of flame baits on their forums
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

tandav wrote:Why does it need a initial protective nose cap... I have never been able to figure it out
The ballistic cap carries the front end steering rockets that turn it horizontal after a safe distance.
And then the ballistic cap jettisons or falls away.

Rockets can be steered from forward or aft. Forward gives more control authority but is very tricky.
Most normal launches make do with aft steering via thrust vector control or fluid injection. These are gradual and about +/- 3 degrees from axis.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

Philip wrote: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ed-for-you
World’s biggest bombs: India’s SPICE no match for America’s MOAB or Russian FOAB
INDIA Updated: Apr 14, 2017 12:03 IST
Rahul Singh
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
During 1965 war IAF had dropped 4000 lb bombs on Peshawar from Canberra bombers. This were 4000 MC (Medium Capacity) British make WWII vintage bombs. Due to defective fuzes they often would not explode. An inert example is in IAF Hindon museum.

The Canberra pilots and navigators would risk their lives to fly deep and past airfield defenses and the bombs would be duds.
The British supplied such useless hardware.

The British started WWII with puny 250 lbs General Purpose (GP) bombs. The RAF consensus was this was more than enough. Then during the Blitz, it was noted that extensive damage was caused to London from 500 kg SC (German abbreviation) Luftwaffe bombs which had more explosive filling. Then a rush program was started to create the 1000 Lb Medium Capacity bomb. The thinking was light walled bombs with higher explosive filling were called High Capacity. The Medium capacity was dual purpose as the casing was hardened cast steel which could be used for hardened targets and still deliver a good blast. 4000 Lb MC was its derivative. Later the British developed the Tallboys and Grand Slam which were the Aunties of all Bombs of that time.

There was a 4000 lbs High capacity bomb which was essentially a couple of tin cans bolted together and had multiple fuzes to ensure it would go off.

Will discuss Rahul Singh's article in the IAF thread.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by malushahi »

Indranil wrote: Just to be clear, we are saying we would be flying a C-130 into PAF/PLAAF airspace with this bomb, and drop it where?
nanga kya nahayega kya nichodega. the likely locations to the west, well documented on the web, are more of gbu-fits.

the north, however, is quite a different matter. see here:
http://imgur.com/GAtiM3n
here
http://imgur.com/d7DOjht
here
http://imgur.com/Bj5Qw2V

and tens of other such tunnel complexes burrowed into foliage-less mountains and valleys. all of them screaming for a moab of their own.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

malushahi, What are those pictures off?

Chinese tunnels?
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by malushahi »

yes
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

I think more than the MOAB they need the MOP and the GBU-28

DRDO has to master the LGB kit components.
Then its not a hard thing to make the GB-28 type ordnance.

The fits and starts with Sudarshan were not promising.

However we hear reports of heavy 1000 kg bomb Garuthma(?) but haven't seen any pictures.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by malushahi »

gbus are a better choice for hardened underground bunkers where most of the ke is used to rip through reinforcement vertically.

tunnels are predominantly horizontal, and not reinforced for significant portions of their length. here moab-like ordnance is a better candidate because the air-blast collapses the cave roofs sealing any materiel contained therein. even if the burrows are empty during deployment, collapsed roofs make them unfit for any future use. and there are very few places to hide on on that treeless, featureless expanse.

very little/no risk of civilian fatalities in that terrain. sucking the air out of the lungs of any rats hiding within is cherry on the top.
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Is there someone here who can calculate the ground-penetrating force of the MOP (weight) dropped from a given height, terminal speed, whatever (and keep that figure aside from explosive power); and compare that to the force of a Brahmos diving vertically onto the same target (which need not use conventional explosives). I'd like to see a comparison of the two, to understand penetration effects, perhaps expressed in kilo-newtons or whatever makes sense. Please: My math probably isn't as good as most others here, some of whom probably already have the spreadsheet built (which I do not).

Another thought I had recently...

I'm wondering if enough use is being put to the speed of Brahmos as a force multiplier. For example, I was recently surfing the web and came to know of something called a "Lazy Dog" bomb, which were used extensively by the Khans on the Vietnamese. Basically, we're talking about flechettes (i.e. metal arrows), which would be released in a cloud prior to impact. This got me further thinking, that it would be quite advantageous, militarily speaking, if say one country was trying to prevent another country's nuclear arsenal from being moved by road during wartime..... If a Brahmos could loose a "shaped volley" of flechettes upon both lanes of a two-lane highway, for X-kilometers in a straight line.

Sending the flechettes flying rather horizontally at mach 2.8 such that they'll fall over a long stretch of highway......... This could be quite the game changer. Apparently, the effect on target of the Vietnam era Lazy Dogs was rather like .50 caliber fire with 8 hits per square meter. It was described as "gruesome".

For that matter.... India already flies supersonic aircraft: So how about simple dispensers for a wide-area high-mach dispersal of flechettes?


Just passing some time, though I'd very much like to learn how to do those ground penetrating calculations. :?:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

The ground resistance would be nonlinear and not a constant. So simple algebraic formulae would be grossly off.
Old algebra formula is

v^2-u^2 = 2 a*s
where v is final velocity (assume comes to rest and is zero), u is initial velocity, a is deceleration in this instance and s is the distance in which the MOP travels. The tricky part is the 'a' which is dependent on materials, the form factor of the projectile, the velocity of penetration.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by shiv »

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Is there someone here who can calculate the ground-penetrating force of the MOP (weight) dropped from a given height, terminal speed, whatever (and keep that figure aside from explosive power); and compare that to the force of a Brahmos diving vertically onto the same target (which need not use conventional explosives). I'd like to see a comparison of the two, to understand penetration effects, perhaps expressed in kilo-newtons or whatever makes sense. Please: My math probably isn't as good as most others here, some of whom probably already have the spreadsheet built (which I do not).
Those whose math is no good are the best people for this because their minds are not weighed down by nitty gritty details or reality if you like. That said people who are interested in guns and shooting typically talk of projectile kinetic energy which is 1/2*m*v^2.

For pretty much the same reasons as your curiosity I tried to search for terminal velocity of dumb bombs - say 450 kg/1000 lb dropped from a sufficiently high altitude. The actual figures are more difficult to find than one might imagine. However I did get a figure of ~Mach 1 (330 m/sec)

Brahmos strikes its target at say 2 mach. It has a warhead of 300 kg and I assume the rest of the body would be at least 150 kg more. So I am assuming that the weights of terminal Brahmos and the weight of a 450 kg dumb bomb are the same.

The energy would be:
Brahmos = 1/2*450*(660^2)=98 million Joules
450 kg bum= 1/2*450*(330^2)=24.5 million Joules

The KE is definitely part of Brahmos destructive power, but bunker penetrating bombs also have a hardened nose as well as a time delay fuse for the explosion. Perhaps the Brahmos warhead has those features as well in its bunker buster mode

If you are not constrained by deep knowledge of this stuff there are other interesting timepass calculations you can do - like the deceleration experienced by the bomb/missile assuming it is stopped dead in 0.1 seconds. From that you can calculate the force and the pressure per unit area. Of course these are only time pass calculations because of all the assumptions. The theory soon goes awry because it's not just pressure but intense heat and a plasma that will blow away stuff from its path because of the intense energy release and a fracturing shockwave that goes down into rock or whatever stops the projectile.


I'm wondering if enough use is being put to the speed of Brahmos as a force multiplier. For example, I was recently surfing the web and came to know of something called a "Lazy Dog" bomb, which were used extensively by the Khans on the Vietnamese. Basically, we're talking about flechettes (i.e. metal arrows), which would be released in a cloud prior to impact. This got me further thinking, that it would be quite advantageous, militarily speaking, if say one country was trying to prevent another country's nuclear arsenal from being moved by road during wartime..... If a Brahmos could loose a "shaped volley" of flechettes upon both lanes of a two-lane highway, for X-kilometers in a straight line.

Sending the flechettes flying rather horizontally at mach 2.8 such that they'll fall over a long stretch of highway......... This could be quite the game changer. Apparently, the effect on target of the Vietnam era Lazy Dogs was rather like .50 caliber fire with 8 hits per square meter. It was described as "gruesome".

For that matter.... India already flies supersonic aircraft: So how about simple dispensers for a wide-area high-mach dispersal of flechettes?


Just passing some time, though I'd very much like to learn how to do those ground penetrating calculations. :?:
I think flechettes would not be effective in blocking a 2 lane highway. Better to simply crater it or take out bridges. But any such obstacles will be cleared by military engineers whose job is to do that - so repeated attacks would be needed to keep any road disruption closed
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

^^^
ramana and shiv, thanks for setting me in the right direction. I'll look into this and perhaps post in this thread....

Actually, I meant to imply the trucks hauling nukes would be the targets for supersonic flechettes, not the roadway itself.

The imperative for targeting every vehicle along a stretch of road with flechettes, is specific to the pre-emptive (non-nuclear) counter-strike, as one might contemplate for the always-impending Pakistani putsch (when nukes have already fallen into "the wrong hands" and are being sped-away from the jernails stockpiles.

The steep-dive and deep ground penetration version I've suggested above, is for those nukes still underground. Of course, the ground-penetrator wouldn't use a swarm of smaller flechettes. Perhaps just one big one, with a special end-cap on a delayed fuse.

Shiv, your mention of "intense heat and plasma" gave me more to wonder about: I wonder if it would help such a ground-penetrating weapon, to have a "nose cap" made of thermite or some other thermitic material? Perhaps it could burn a path for the "heavy tungsten-carbide penetrator" shell housing the 10kt FBF "first striker" of choice.

This could be a fascinating spreadsheet to build........

JMT.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Philip »

A dedicated strat/ bomber with a large internal weapons bay will be able to carry a large bomb/missile that can penetrate multiple layers of concrete/bunkers buried UG. The range of missiles that we currently possess ,barring BMos due to its kinetic energy and vert dive capability for the land attack version specifically developed for hitting targets in the mountains,will not be able to take out the kind of Tora Bora targets that the US is using MOAB for in Af-Pak. But more than the need for a heavy munition is the need for bombers.The US is upgrading its B-52s,Russia using very efficiently its TU-95/142 Bears (which the IN has just retired!) in primarily a strat. bombing role carrying their nukes and other tactical munitions. They also possess supersonic B-1s,B-2s,Backfires,Blackjacks,etc.China has a huge fleet of legacy Tupolevs. India...zilch! The myopia of our mil planners is simply staggering.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Singha »

Survey team has visited jabalpur to setup a new 100acre brahmos plant per media report.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Karthik S »

Isn't godrej making the Brahmos. IIRC, they had plans for MSRAM and LRSAM as well.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Austin »

What altitude do Intermediate Range Missiles like Agni-3/2 flies at Midcourse phase of their flight and what is their re-entry velocity ? Thanks
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Austin »

Russia and India Test Hypersonic and Supersonic Missiles

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... c-missiles
AdityaM
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by AdityaM »

How soon after touching its target does the warhead on a bramos like missile explode.

Wouldn't the kinetic energy/ speed / inertia of the missile carry the exploding warhead away & exit from the target by the time it explodes?

I am talking with reference to buildings as targets with missile impacting horizontally, and not a vertical deep dive.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Cosmo_R »

^^^What would be interesting is to calculate/estimate is the cost per joule. What is the all-in cost (including the delivery cost for the dumb bomb) per joule of the kinetic energy delivered? Brahmos is ~$3MM/unit cost. Hey! something for a rainy day. :)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »


This is the long awaited AIII test by SFC showing operational deployment. Note the payload is 1.5 tonnes. The all up weight is incorrect at 2,200 kg.

India successfully test-fired its intermediate-range ballistic missile Agni-III from Abdul Kalam Island off the Odisha coast.

The missile lifted off from Launch Pad No. 4 of the Integrated Test Range located on the island at 9.12 a.m., sources in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) said.

The Strategic Forces Command, an especially raised missile-handling unit of the Indian Army, carried out the test with logistics support from DRDO.

Agni-III has a strike range of more than 3,000 km and capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads weighing up to 1.5 tonnes.

The missile is powered by a two-stage solid propellant engine. With a length of 17 metres, the missile's diameter is 2 metres and weight is around 2,200 kg.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

I guess the K4 test should happen soon.
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Bheeshma »

Yes the all up weight must be 22 tonnes. I am surprized that a missile essentially the same size (0.5 m shorter) is half the weight of A-5 and yet has 5K km range. :rotfl: . Just shows what A-5 is really all about. I was hoping they would test MIRV's on A3/5 soon.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

That's called range partial. The third stage on A5 gives it the extra range and the payload is lighter.
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Bheeshma »

But does that really add 24-25 tonnes more? The payload as per some wiki link for A-3 is 2.5 tonne and A-5 1.5 tonne.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

What 24-25 tonnes?
We are discussing range 3km vs 5 km.
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Bheeshma »

The difference in total weight of the two missiles is 24-25 tonnes. Maybe more 28 tonnes if A-5 is 50 tonnes. I understand the extra range part.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by arun »

With Hydrobharat down for maintenance, an alternate website to track down NOTAMs.

US FederalAviation Administration Pilotweb website provides NOTAMs for VECF, the ICAO call sign for the Calcutta FIC which controls airspace for Wheeler Island/Interim Test Range (ITR) etc. airspace. Click below link:

Pilot Web

In the box on the left hand side of titled NOTAM Retrival select ICAO as “Report Format Type” and type VECF in the box captioned “Locations”.

There is a NOTAM out for May 4 and May 5.

May I Request a kind soul to do a distance calculation and box tracing on a map?
A0540/17 (Issued for VECF VOMF PART 1 OF 2) - LAUNCHING OF EXPERIMENTAL FLT VEHICLE WILL TAKE PLACE WITH THE
FLW DETAILS. DANGER ZONES COORDINATES:
POINT A- 204820.16N 0870235.88E
POINT B- 181220.52N 0860707.68E
POINT C- 114237.98N 0862115.12E
POINT D- 115421.46N 0892114.18E
POINT E- 182408.28N 0883027.72E
POINT F- 204844.28N 0870725.32E
POINT A- 204820.16N 0870235.88E
NO OVER FLYING ACTIVITY IS PERMISSIBLE WI THE ABOVE MENTIONED DANGER
AREA. DURING THE HOURS OF LAUNCH, THE FOLLOWING ATS ROUTES/SEGMENTS
ARE REROUTED/NOT AVBL IN KOLKATA FIR:

{REST SNIPPED}

END PART 1 OF 2. 0230-0630, 04 MAY 02:30 2017 UNTIL 05 MAY 06:30 2017. CREATED:
28 APR 05:30 2017
For Sriharikota (SHAR) and ISRO rocket launches, US FederalAviation Administration Pilotweb website provides NOTAMs for VOMF, the ICAO call sign for the Madras FIC which controls SHAR airspace. Click below link:

Pilot Web

In the box on the left hand side of titled NOTAM Retrival select ICAO as “Report Format Type” and type VOMF in the box captioned “Locations”.

There is a NOTAM out for a ballon launch which I presume is for getting a handle on high altitude wind speeds for the upcomming GSLV launnch.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1982
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by sudeepj »

Some members have a serious case of bomber envy without understanding how bombers fit into the war fighting needs of specific countries. B52/Tu type large Bombers are a product of needs envisaged during WW II bombing and a 10 year period after that when bombers were the only practical way of delivering nuclear payloads. Later, they became a survivable nuclear delivery system with some bombers always up in the air. Still later, they became bomb trucks for COIN from the air campaigns such as in Afghanistan or Iraq and a way to prosecute wars against inferior enemies with no real AD.

India is never going to conduct a large bombing campaign on a city, simply because our war fighting needs do not call for it. If we need to lay waste to an entire city, why not use a nuke? If we need to punish a city, strikes on key infrastructure such as bridges, power stations, water supply stations make a lot more sense than indiscriminate bombing! And if an indiscriminate killing is needed, that is achieved cheaper by a nuke!

For the next 10 years, India does not need to fight a COIN battle at long distances. So what is the need for a bomb truck? Further, India faces peer or superior enemies. Exactly when will we use our bombers against them? As long as their AD network is intact and they can put up a few fighters up in the air, our bombers will be toast, supersonic or not! Its only when we have enough to kill their AD/fighters that we will get an opportunity to use the bombers. So where should our money go first? into assets to kill AD/fighters or bombers?
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by SSSalvi »

@arun
There is a NOTAM out for May 4 and May 5.

May I Request a kind soul to do a distance calculation and box tracing on a map?
Here is a trace as desired:
Image

Yours Truly,
A Kind soul.

:) :wink:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ramana »

What's the distance please?
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4067
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by ArjunPandit »

sudeepj wrote:Some members have a serious case of bomber envy without understanding how bombers fit into the war fighting needs of specific countries. B52/Tu type large Bombers are a product of needs envisaged during WW II bombing and a 10 year period after that when bombers were the only practical way of delivering nuclear payloads. Later, they became a survivable nuclear delivery system with some bombers always up in the air. Still later, they became bomb trucks for COIN from the air campaigns such as in Afghanistan or Iraq and a way to prosecute wars against inferior enemies with no real AD.

India is never going to conduct a large bombing campaign on a city, simply because our war fighting needs do not call for it. If we need to lay waste to an entire city, why not use a nuke? If we need to punish a city, strikes on key infrastructure such as bridges, power stations, water supply stations make a lot more sense than indiscriminate bombing! And if an indiscriminate killing is needed, that is achieved cheaper by a nuke!

For the next 10 years, India does not need to fight a COIN battle at long distances. So what is the need for a bomb truck? Further, India faces peer or superior enemies. Exactly when will we use our bombers against them? As long as their AD network is intact and they can put up a few fighters up in the air, our bombers will be toast, supersonic or not! Its only when we have enough to kill their AD/fighters that we will get an opportunity to use the bombers. So where should our money go first? into assets to kill AD/fighters or bombers?
Sudeep
you have a valid point, but here is why i think India still needs a dedicated bomber fleet in a two front war scenario
1. After the porki air defenses have been suppressed/neutralized, a bomber can actually help in packing a bigger punch to paki army, again freeing up other assests for our eastern theater. A pack of 1-2 Su30 in A2A config, with a 5-10 Tejas with A2G and A2A with 1-2 bombers can inflict heavy pain on their ground forces
2. Unload huge packages on their naval bases or ships, in Arabian sea or if they manage to reach bay of bengal
3. Armed with LRCMs (Nirbhay/Bmos) it can patrol both seaboards for a longer duration giving additional headache to chinese carriers if they chose
to come to gwadar/karachi/IOR
4. A bomber can carry high payload bombs, which we may not have right now, but let's not rule out future, where we will have to smoke out to apki roaches deep inside the Underground bunkers
You may counter me on
1. cost/benefit advantages
2. prioritization given so much is pending after last 10 years

but by itself a bomber is a strong case.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by shiv »

ArjunPandit wrote: 1. After the porki air defenses have been suppressed/neutralized, a bomber can actually help in packing a bigger punch to paki army, again freeing up other assests for our eastern theater. A pack of 1-2 Su30 in A2A config, with a 5-10 Tejas with A2G and A2A with 1-2 bombers can inflict heavy pain on their ground forces
2. Unload huge packages on their naval bases or ships, in Arabian sea or if they manage to reach bay of bengal
3. Armed with LRCMs (Nirbhay/Bmos) it can patrol both seaboards for a longer duration giving additional headache to chinese carriers if they chose
to come to gwadar/karachi/IOR
4. A bomber can carry high payload bombs, which we may not have right now, but let's not rule out future, where we will have to smoke out to apki roaches deep inside the Underground bunkers
You may counter me on
1. cost/benefit advantages
2. prioritization given so much is pending after last 10 years

but by itself a bomber is a strong case.
I would like to address this point by point because I think this post contains a lot of information that arises from Discovery/NatGeo/Big Picture book of weapons type propaganda about "Greatest weapons" or "weapons of WW3"
1. After the porki air defenses have been suppressed/neutralized, a bomber can actually help in packing a bigger punch to paki army, again freeing up other assests for our eastern theater. A pack of 1-2 Su30 in A2A config, with a 5-10 Tejas with A2G and A2A with 1-2 bombers can inflict heavy pain on their ground forces
Hunting in packs stopped after Korea. No one offers such massed targets for air defences

Bombers can only drop bombs in a long straight line. Loitering, turning around quickly and hitting a target of opportunity is a fighter/helo speciality. This is no reason for getting bombers.

2. Unload huge packages on their naval bases or ships, in Arabian sea or if they manage to reach bay of bengal
Unloading huge packages of what? Dumb bombs in a straight line? "Huge packages" means nothing. But I will get back to this below
3. Armed with LRCMs (Nirbhay/Bmos) it can patrol both seaboards for a longer duration giving additional headache to chinese carriers if they chose to come to gwadar/karachi/IOR
Carrying lots of bombs is one thing. But who is going to detect the target for you? I repeat for the 2nd time in less than 24 hours- the Ocean is a huge place. Searching for 12000 hours may get you the same results as searching for 12 hours. Why do you think that the Tu-142 was such a lovable beast for us rather than the Tu-95 Bear bomber? Because the Tu 142 had sensors and could do thousands of hours of patrolling using those sensors. If anything was found it could quickly call on other resources to hit the target if need be. Why do you think the US does not use B-52s as maritime patrol? Bombers are useless by themselves. If you have a bomber you still need your patrolling aircraft.

On BRF I find a lot of people arguing in great detail about costs and when we argue here it is nothing like my home finances. It is all about billions of dollars. But no one seems to ask about cost per sortie of an aircraft that weights 150 tons versus one that weighs 15 tons. If a patrol aircraft spots a ship or a flotilla - 4 Jaguars can go in for an attack faster and cheaper than 1 lumbering bomber. And remember that the bomber is one huge target and is not good for flying 50 feet above the sea like the jaguar does. Losing one bomber reduces our capability more than losing one of 4 fighters
4. A bomber can carry high payload bombs, which we may not have right now, but let's not rule out future, where we will have to smoke out to apki roaches deep inside the Underground bunkers
What is a high payload bomb? Would you be able to find resources online about the bunker busting capability of bombs that weigh 250 kg, 500 kg, 1000 kg and 5000 kg and explain why the 5000 kg is a "high payload" bomb and will do more than the 1000 kg?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by Singha »

A platypus will unload 4 bombs and turn home.
A bomber will unload 80
I posted a video how a lone b1 provided cas in kobane and took apart blocks of buildings one by one

Economy of force than a squadron of fighters and refuelers
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:A platypus will unload 4 bombs and turn home.
A bomber will unload 80
I posted a video how a lone b1 provided cas in kobane and took apart blocks of buildings one by one

Economy of force than a squadron of fighters and refuelers
Question is "What buildings are we proposing to take down that are conveniently arranged in a long straight line"

Are we going to do this over Islamabad? Karachi? Lahore? Lhasa? Beijing?
Exactly who will provide us with the santized air space for this?

Too much American hawa IMO
Locked