Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jul 2017 02:04

Namica had all aiming sights next to the launch tube and Nag launcher is not a disposable launch canister and since its a hot launch all things like sight, launcher doors, antennas, ets have to be protected from the force of the exhaust. I am not sure but think this could be the reason form my earlier experience with the Namica team

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jul 2017 02:13

Why is this not a problem with other ATGM launchers?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jul 2017 02:34

Indranil wrote:Why is this not a problem with other ATGM launchers?

Can you please provide examples of Nag like missile with Namica like launcher

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jul 2017 04:58

Pereh, FV102 Striker, AF-10s. I am sure, I have missed many. And ofcourse there are a variety of S2A missile carriers which have a lot of sensors placed on the vehicle.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 18 Jul 2017 06:38

Chinese AFT-09 and also M901 ITV. I think the later may have influenced Namica as Pakistanis operate a number of M901 ITVs.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/aft_9_l8.jpg

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m901.jpg

srin · Post by **srin** » 18 Jul 2017 07:09

Who in the army orbat is tasked with carrying the man portable ATGMs and launchers ?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jul 2017 11:46

Maybe the first Namica was designed similar to M901 ITV but Indian army was not happy and wanted more missiles in ready to fire condition, then the next version with 8 missiles was designed and the latest with 6. But there are not many ATGM which is more than 40kg like Nag.

MaverickV · Post by **MaverickV** » 19 Jul 2017 11:18

A newbie question: Why is the Nag so much heavier at around 42kgs. Not comparing with MP-ATGMs but there is a huge weight difference between other ATGM weights and Nag. Does it have some additional capabilities which makes it heavy?

MaverickV · Post by **MaverickV** » 19 Jul 2017 11:22

On a similar note, why are our missiles so heavy. Not just Nag but Akash weighing 720 Kgs for 25-30 Kms range whereas Barak-8 is less than half of it for double the range. Are they over-designed? For strategic missiles like Agni series, range might be under-stated for political reasons but why are our tactical missiles heavier than the competition?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Jul 2017 11:43

MaverickV wrote:On a similar note, why are our missiles so heavy. Not just Nag but Akash weighing 720 Kgs for 25-30 Kms range whereas Barak-8 is less than half of it for double the range. Are they over-designed? For strategic missiles like Agni series, range might be under-stated for political reasons but why are our tactical missiles heavier than the competition?

Sub-optimal fuel (i.e. less Isp) for propulsion is what I would put my money on as a main reason. To some extent materials used, heavier electronics/sensors might be playing a role too. But there could be less obvious factors contributing as well, such as maturity of design, lack of certain advanced capabilities in design process so on and so forth. Specific reasons could be different for different projects.

But what exactly this 42kg number includes in it..? The missile itself must not be so heavy. Does that include, cannisters, launchers etc etc..?

Wiki tells these numbers for Spike:

Spike-ER from helicopter:
• Missile in canister: 34 kg (74 lb 15 oz)
• Launcher: 55 kg (121 lb 4 oz)
• Launcher + 4 missiles: 187 kg (412 lb 4 oz)

Spike-MR/LR from ground:[3]
• Missile round: 14 kg (30 lb 14 oz)
• Command & launch unit (CLU): 5 kg (11 lb 0 oz)
• Tripod: 2.8 kg (6 lb 3 oz)
• Battery: 1 kg (2 lb 3 oz)
• Thermal sight: 4 kg (8 lb 13 oz)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2017 00:02

We can't club every missile in the same bucket.

Akash's fuel is completely different. It's propulsion system is a thing of beauty. The Roosies should take a bow on that one. The missile never decelerates which requires a lot of energy. The advantage is that the window of opportunity for the target to take evasive action is reduced. But it just takes a whole lot of energy, aka fuel.

Nag is not much heavier than its peers. One shouldn't evaluate Nag with the man portable ATGMs. The fuel is not the heaviest part of ATGMs. The warhead is. DRDO's MPATGM is 18kgs. They are trying to bring it down to 14 kgs.

We still have a lot of work to decrease the weight and size of our electronics though.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2017 00:06

We can't club every missile in the same bucket.

Akash's fuel is completely different. It's propulsion system is a thing of beauty, very elegant. The Roosies should take a bow on that one. The missile never decelerates. The advantage is that the window of opportunity for the target to take evasive action is reduced. But it just takes a whole lot of energy, aka fuel.

Nag is not much heavier than its peers. One shouldn't evaluate Nag with the man portable ATGMs. It would be the same as saying Hellfire or the PARS missile is inefficient compared to say a Javelin. The profiles that they can fly, and the damage that they can inflict is of a different class with respect to MPATGM. DRDO's MPATGM is 18kgs. They are trying to bring it down to 14 kgs.

We still have a lot of work to decrease the weight and size of our electronics though.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jul 2017 00:29

We have reached a fair amount of competence in putting together lightweight avionics packages. Our structures & propulsion systems need finetuning. But seriously does it matter if a non manpack missile system weighs a few kg more as long as it works well, and its complete design and upgrades are in India allowing for constant improvement

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2017 03:00

US deployment against ISIS shows need for cheaper military weapons

Fight against ISIS shows need for lower cost weapons

See the upgrading the 2.75 inch high velocity rocket with a laser seeker adds flexibility at lower costs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jul 2017 03:48

^ Eating up platform hours and the support cost is far more important and this is what is leading to a low-cost Counter insurgency platform for both strike and ISR. Munitions themselves are only about a fourth of the total cost with flight operations factoring in the logistical and tanker support consuming well over half.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2017 05:35

But HTT-40 carrying Helinas is not sexy.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2017 08:34

HTT-40 is not an acceptable choice. It is indian designed.

Only imports will do.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2017 09:03

^^ iraqis have been using Cessnas armed with hellfires.

>> DRDO's MPATGM is 18kgs. They are trying to bring it down to 14 kgs.

the SFW IIR/MMW type top attack submunitions are only about 3-5kg each. Nag being top attack, cannot its warhead be reduced to say 8kg for the same Pk. we dont need to blow the tank down to its wheels to score a kill. the Javelin top attack uses a 8.4kg warhead and is considered best of breed.

we should look at a TOR SA15 type launcher for large numbers of Nags. it has 8 tubes and a folding radar/op
http://www.helmo.gr/gvn2/main.php?g2_vi ... OISSES_PMT

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2017 09:36

Nag has tandem warhead. Two shapes charges.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Jul 2017 10:45

Indranil wrote:We can't club every missile in the same bucket.

Akash's fuel is completely different. It's propulsion system is a thing of beauty. The Roosies should take a bow on that one. The missile never decelerates which requires a lot of energy. The advantage is that the window of opportunity for the target to take evasive action is reduced. But it just takes a whole lot of energy, aka fuel.

Nag is not much heavier than its peers. One shouldn't evaluate Nag with the man portable ATGMs. The fuel is not the heaviest part of ATGMs. The warhead is. DRDO's MPATGM is 18kgs. They are trying to bring it down to 14 kgs.

We still have a lot of work to decrease the weight and size of our electronics though.

Agree completely. Apologies for oversimplified post.

We have to keep in mind that essentially our systems have gone through only one major design iteration (one iteration being design - manufacture - operationalize - maintain - performance improvement (PIP)) with perhaps only a handful of exceptions such as ballistic missiles. As we iterate more we will get to the world class, that's a given. There is no fundamental reason why we can't. In fact where we have done the iterations, we are already at the state-of-the-art, again best example being ballistic missiles.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2017 11:04

Singha wrote:^^ iraqis have been using Cessnas armed with hellfires.

>> DRDO's MPATGM is 18kgs. They are trying to bring it down to 14 kgs.

the SFW IIR/MMW type top attack submunitions are only about 3-5kg each. Nag being top attack, cannot its warhead be reduced to say 8kg for the same Pk. we dont need to blow the tank down to its wheels to score a kill. the Javelin top attack uses a 8.4kg warhead and is considered best of breed.

we should look at a TOR SA15 type launcher for large numbers of Nags. it has 8 tubes and a folding radar/op
http://www.helmo.gr/gvn2/main.php?g2_vi ... OISSES_PMT

Singha sir, is the Hellfire an inefficient version of the Javelin? If not, you have your answer. By the way, if the MPATGM weighs 14.5 kg, how much will its warhead weigh?

SajeevJino · Post by **SajeevJino** » 20 Jul 2017 11:43

Pratyush wrote:HTT-40 is not an acceptable choice. It is indian designed.

Only imports will do.

I think it was discussed earlier sometime too,

Why not HAL shown a plastic model of HTT 40 with Four missiles, err Let alone the Plastic model, let them get the FOC and complete the Air force trainer order first, later we can talk about armed version of HTT 40

I think HAL takes another 10-12 year to complete the HTT 40 order to IAF, then IN will also come in a queue for more,

On the other hand BAE Hawk is the mature platform, with some 100 Hawks in service, which is going to be increased to 150 in coming years, well HAL is doing the screw driving job, hence make in India

Last DEFEXPO they shown the model of Armed Hawk, and British were asked the HAL to modify and to propose it to IAF for COIN ops in J&K and Red terrorists in North east, since govt not allowed the IAF to use its power against them, HAL also not interested in this matter.

well other hand I don't know what that Gold plated AH 64 can do in War against China and Pakistan,

okay one is Plane and other is Helicopters

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jul 2017 00:39

^^^ This is slightly OT here. But let me indulge.

They have not shown a plastic model yet. But they have shown slides

. Frankly, once they have the rest of the plane proved out, adding hardpoints is probably a years worth of design, modification and testing. Between LCH/HPT-32/Kiran, they might have all the basic blocks. They might have to sand the contours down a bit.

By the way, if the youngsters at HAL do get the HTT-40 cleared by 2018, they are going to prove IAF wrong. They went from drawing board to certification in 4 years, like they promised. They have come up with a plane at par with the PC-7 Mk2, like they promised. If the build times and quality of the prototypes are anything to go by and if HAL sticks to the currently quoted price, they would be fielding these planes at a price lower than that of the PC-7 MkIIs, like they promised. One does wonder, what if IAF supported the project from 2010 instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

I actually support (present and past) GoI's moral position of not using our armed forces for COIN operations in our interiors. But whatever agency is used, it makes sense to get as many foots off that ground as possible. By making the recce, patrol and attack airborne to the extent possible, the risk from IEDs and surprise attacks can be decreased.

Now coming to your point of converting intermediate/advanced jet trainers to combat aicraft. Both BAE and HAL presented combat Hawk and Hawk-i. If you look at what is being provided on those aircraft, it is quite comprehensive. So your point is not valid that HAL hasn't provided a choice. I am with IAF with this one though. I think the proposal falls between the stools. It will not be much cheaper than LCA, and I believe it is underpowered to do CT/COIN tasks in the higher Himalayas. But, if it is modified to field an F125IN, then things become much more interesting. Alternatively, a cheaper modern version of the A-10s can be (co-)developed. Rugged, with podded high bypass turbofans and with relatively straight wings.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 21 Jul 2017 01:57

I understand the reason might be something to do with the propellant but why does India's Agni V and North Korea's ICBM (Recent one) has completely different plume length and smoke percentage?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Jul 2017 02:11

North Korea flame is liquid fuel like Prithvi, ss18 Satan & Sarmat.

While Agni uses solid fuel, that's the difference.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 21 Jul 2017 06:28

Israel to partner DRDO for developing missile defence system for India.

In a major upgrade to its defences, the Indian Army has signed a MoU with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to raise one regiment of the advanced Medium Range Surface to Air Missiles (MRSAM). The army plans to have a total of five regiments of this air defence system, which will be deployed opposite to China and Pakistan.

The MRSAM marks a paradigm shift in the capabilities of the Indian Army. The system can shoot down enemy ballistic missiles, aircraft, helicopters, drones, surveillance aircraft and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. Meant for the Army Air Defence, the MRSAM is an advanced, all weather, mobile, land-based air defence system.

It is capable of engaging multiple aerial targets at ranges of more than 50 km. Each MRSAM system comprises a command-and-control system, a tracking radar, missiles, and mobile launchers. Each regiment consists of four launchers with three missiles each. So five regiments will have 60 missiles.

A MOU has been signed between the army and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for one regiment.

“The MOU marks the beginning of the development of the MRSAM in the configuration required by the army,” said a defence ministry official, adding that the entire project is worth Rs 17,000 cr.

Earlier this year, the Cabinet Committee on Security headed by PM Narendra Modi approved a proposal for procuring the MRSAM system for the army. According to the proposal, the army will induct five regiments of the system.

The system will be jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and DRDO with the involvement of private sectors and DPSUs. “The system will have majority indigenous content, giving boost to the Make-in-India initiative.

The participation of Indian companies in producing MRSAM will empower them in the field of hightech weapon technology.

Last July, the IAI and DRDO conducted three flight tests of the MRSAM at the integrated test range off the Odisha Coast. The missile successfully intercepted moving aerial targets in all three tests. The MRSAM is a land-based variant of the long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) or Barak-8 naval air defence system, which is designed to operate from naval vessels.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 21 Jul 2017 08:02

^^^^ luncher with 3 missiles , is it army config ? MRSAM was supposed to have eight canisterised missiles in two stacks.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Jul 2017 08:35

Last year this news had appeared. Did anything happens on this front?

http://googleweblight.com/i?u=http://ww ... L&hl=en-IN

Elaborating upon the importance of this proposed deal, officials said here on Saturday the countries including the US and some European countries are reluctant to transfer Seeker technology to India resulting in the country’s missile system lagging behind by at least two generations.
Against this backdrop, Israel has given a clear signal that it will provide the critical ‘know why’ instead of ‘know how’. Starved of the state-of-the-art technology, the Indian industry depends on know how or technology transfer but has not been able to master entire process of manufacturing a smart weapon from scratch. In turn, it hampers the faster modernisation of the armed forces as they are using weapons which are at least 15 to 20 years behind in terms of technological advancement as compared to the US, China and NATO countries.

anupamd · Post by **anupamd** » 21 Jul 2017 09:14

Could be the MRSAM & QRSAM our answer to the Paki Nasr?

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Jul 2017 09:34

Against this backdrop, Israel has given a clear signal that it will provide the critical ‘know why’ instead of ‘know how’. Starved of the state-of-the-art technology, the Indian industry depends on know how or technology transfer but has not been able to master entire process of manufacturing a smart weapon from scratch.

Have a bridge in Arunachal to sell if this happens

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 21 Jul 2017 09:50

'know why' what in the world does that mean?

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jul 2017 10:00

Kashi wrote:'know why' what in the world does that mean?

Science 101

Know-How -> how to repeat the inputs and processes to get the same results
Know-Why -> holy grail; understand the science and the reasons for it working (or not working many other ways).

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas A. Edison

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 21 Jul 2017 12:52

Plume would be different if using solid versus liquid propellant

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 21 Jul 2017 20:29

Kashi wrote:'know why' what in the world does that mean?

Why can't we hit the incoming missile?

Gib money please.

Shut up and take my money.

Because you are noobs. Now you know why.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jul 2017 22:35

I hope the radar gets indigenized otherwise, this is just not enough.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jul 2017 11:29

Note though an anti BM role is clearly mentioned. Directed against Nasr no doubt and good for both IAF/IN as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2017 03:19

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 24 Jul 2017 15:49

Above video does not work

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 24 Jul 2017 16:42

It was posted by DDR and they have removed it

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 24 Jul 2017 17:07

prasannasimha wrote:Above video does not work

I have seen the video , all i can say , we have very good tracking system in both optical and IR mode. Thought of downloading the video , but missed