Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 09 Nov 2017 11:00

i am not sure even the Yankees have 1000's of these missiles or have fired CM in 1000's ...these are pretty expensive missiles...wrt to a pauper porkistan i think even a 100 will be an overkill..wrt chinese no idea given that most of their targets could be quite far away ?? atleast industrial targets are quite far away !

arun · Post by **arun** » 09 Nov 2017 11:04

From PIB at http://pibphoto.nic.in/photo//2017/Nov/ ... 117438.jpg

A view of the 'NIRBHAY' sub-sonic cruise missile of DRDO, successfully flight tested from the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, Odisha on November 07, 2017.

CNR :104954 Photo ID :117438 :

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Nov 2017 11:14

manjgu wrote:i am not sure even the Yankees have 1000's of these missiles or have fired CM in 1000's ...these are pretty expensive missiles...wrt to a pauper porkistan i think even a 100 will be an overkill..wrt chinese no idea given that most of their targets could be quite far away ?? atleast industrial targets are quite far away !

W.R.T to Pakistan there are 1000's of Targets in Pakistan, we need to take out PAF within hours, Power stations, Large Mobile genrators, Communication Towers, Radar sites, Key Bridges, Missile Launchers, Refineries, Bridges, PN Navy Ships, Gas fields, Oil storage etc.

W.R.T to CHina CM is not for Industrial Zones but to target thier key radars, Fighter bases, PLA formations in Tibet, Key bridges depots in Tibet completely exposing thier troops near the border.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Nov 2017 11:29

A Deshmukh wrote:
We need to produce this in mass numbers (1000s to handle western front and 10000s to handle northern front).

OK. Lets not get carried away. IAF has some 5000 targets marked for bakis alone. Throwing a couple of million $$ worth missile at each of these targets would soon beggar us. That's not the aim of the war now is it..?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 09 Nov 2017 11:33

Aditya_V...there may be 1000's of targets... but do u seriously think we will use CM's to target these 1000's of targets?? a tomahawk costs approx 2M USD...assuming indian CM is half approx 1M USD ... how many do u think we will use?? when we were so shy of using LGB's during kargil !! our CM may be cheaper than Brahmos but still quite expensive.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 09 Nov 2017 11:40

Is there parallel development of subsonic SLCM?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Nov 2017 11:44

abhijitm wrote:Is there parallel development of subsonic SLCM?

At least I have not seen/heard of any. But it should be easy for DRDO to convert Nirbhay into SLCM given availability of all the building blocks. Would be interesting to see whether we go for Vertical tube launched version or the Torpedo tube launched version to start with.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Nov 2017 11:48

manjgu wrote:Aditya_V...there may be 1000's of targets... but do u seriously think we will use CM's to target these 1000's of targets?? a tomahawk costs approx 2M USD...assuming indian CM is half approx 1M USD ... how many do u think we will use?? when we were so shy of using LGB's during kargil !! our CM may be cheaper than Brahmos but still quite expensive.

CM's will not be at all targets but definitely we need thousands against Pakis, they should not conserved and will work along with Fighter aircraft, BM and PGM's.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Nov 2017 12:13

arun wrote:From PIB at http://pibphoto.nic.in/photo//2017/Nov/ ... 117438.jpg

A view of the 'NIRBHAY' sub-sonic cruise missile of DRDO, successfully flight tested from the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, Odisha on November 07, 2017.

CNR :104954 Photo ID :117438 :

Compare that to this from 2nd Test I suppose. As IR poited out, look at the nose shape.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 09 Nov 2017 13:14

Indian Scientists Successfully Fire Electromagnetic Railgun (Mach 6) Test Shot (sputnik news)

The Indian Defense Research organization hopes to soon complete trials of electromagnetic railguns that would give the country's naval forces a superlative advantage and a capability to launch devastating attacks on both land and sea targets.
NEW DELHI (Sputnik) — Indian defense scientists have successfully developed electromagnetic railguns (EMRG) that can fire projectiles at Mach 6 (six times the speed of sound) or 4,600 miles per hour. Such railguns are touted as one of the future technologies of warfare, as they use kinetic and laser energy instead of controlled explosives for firing missiles.

According to the state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), a 12 mm square bore EMRG has been successfully tested and they are preparing for the 30 mm variety. The target is to accelerate a one kilogram projectile to a velocity of more than 2,000 m/s with a capacitor bank of 10 megajoules.

From the horses' mouth:

"A simple, single pulse driven railgun launcher was developed with a minimum of metal components in proximity to the bore to maximize the inductance of the launcher and to improve the launch efficiency. The launcher has a 12 mm square bore cross-section. The launcher was fabricated with lengths ranging from 1 to 2 meter," a defense scientist involved with the project told Sputnik on condition of anonymity.

"As handling will be very easy, the armed forces can deploy it at any location in an emergency situation. It will be a very tactical weapon for the naval forces, Rajiv Nayan, a missile technology expert at the Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), told Sputnik.

"These are the times of early stages of development and more such tests in the future would help India to operationalize this technology, which eventually could demand some changes into the military doctrines," Ajey Lele, a security analyst at IDSA, told Sputnik.

Read it all only.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Nov 2017 17:17

There goes the demand for EMALS.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 10 Nov 2017 00:40

Any news about the repeat rests of Nirbhay. Any new NOTAM's or same one in place still?
Prasanna

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2017 01:13

I think the definite range of Nirbhay in its current-turbofan-powered form is about 1100 kms and its speed is about 0.8M. This was established in its second test flight, when it was let to fly for as long as possible after all the test objectives were met. With optimizations, I bet the range can reach about 1600 kms.

In the last test, if it was indeed powered by the PTAE-7 engine, then a maximum range of 700 kms and top speed of about 0.7M makes sense. This is because the fuel efficiency of the 36MT is about 0.7 kg/(kgf∙h) and that of the PTAE about 1.1 kg/(kgf∙h). The difference in top speed can be attributed to the difference in max thrust from 450 kgf for 36MT to 380 kgf for the PTAE-7.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 10 Nov 2017 01:47

Indranil wrote:I think the definite range of Nirbhay in its current-turbofan-powered form is about 1100 kms and its speed is about 0.8M. This was established in its second test flight, when it was let to fly for as long as possible after all the test objectives were met. With optimizations, I bet the range can reach about 1600 kms.

In the last test, if it was indeed powered by the PTAE-7 engine, then a maximum range of 700 kms and top speed of about 0.7M makes sense. This is because the fuel efficiency of the 36MT is about 0.7 kg/(kgf∙h) and that of the PTAE about 1.1 kg/(kgf∙h). The difference in top speed can be attributed to the difference in max thrust from 450 kgf for 36MT to 380 kgf for the PTAE-7.

Will it be possible/practical to make a cheaper (potentially) Paki-specific variant with lower range at lower cost or bigger warhead? Are those kinds of 'reconfigurations' easily possible or does it practically a totally new platform that needs its own set of R&D from scratch?

Avtar Singh · Post by **Avtar Singh** » 10 Nov 2017 03:16

If India is about to have rail guns.. then these things need to be planted all across the Himalayas.
Covering every valley and all airspace above.. N S E W.
In bunkers that would make the wehrmacht proud, they dont even need to be manned... the higher the better.
Make sure the pakchinistan soldiers sent to take them out will need plenty of oxygen!

Wow what a defensive network, destroy anything without correct IFF.
Should give the PLAAF plenty to think about and so much for all those missiles sitting on the tibetan plateau.

Maybe it is just my imagination running away.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2017 03:58

Bart S wrote:
Indranil wrote:I think the definite range of Nirbhay in its current-turbofan-powered form is about 1100 kms and its speed is about 0.8M. This was established in its second test flight, when it was let to fly for as long as possible after all the test objectives were met. With optimizations, I bet the range can reach about 1600 kms.

In the last test, if it was indeed powered by the PTAE-7 engine, then a maximum range of 700 kms and top speed of about 0.7M makes sense. This is because the fuel efficiency of the 36MT is about 0.7 kg/(kgf∙h) and that of the PTAE about 1.1 kg/(kgf∙h). The difference in top speed can be attributed to the difference in max thrust from 450 kgf for 36MT to 380 kgf for the PTAE-7.
Will it be possible/practical to make a cheaper (potentially) Paki-specific variant with lower range at lower cost or bigger warhead? Are those kinds of 'reconfigurations' easily possible or does it practically a totally new platform that needs its own set of R&D from scratch?

For heavier payload and shorter distance, it is more prudent to go down the air launched cruise missile route.

The difference in conventional war fighting capability between Pakistan and India is now so large, that they have no way but to say we have nuclear weapons on virtually every missile. That way, they can sleep at night. But realistically, who puts a nuclear weapon on 80 km rocket?

We would never start a nuclear war. And we would never end it with a nuclear tipped cruise missile. The dhamaka will be larger, much larger.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Nov 2017 05:48

Aditya_V wrote:
manjgu wrote:Aditya_V...there may be 1000's of targets... but do u seriously think we will use CM's to target these 1000's of targets?? a tomahawk costs approx 2M USD...assuming indian CM is half approx 1M USD ... how many do u think we will use?? when we were so shy of using LGB's during kargil !! our CM may be cheaper than Brahmos but still quite expensive.
CM's will not be at all targets but definitely we need thousands against Pakis, they should not conserved and will work along with Fighter aircraft, BM and PGM's.

In addition to what Aditya said, if Indian military planners intends to go down that route, targets will be prioritized based on strategic value and stand off weaponry (supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles like BrahMos and Nirbhay; anti-airfield weapons like SAAW; anti-ship missiles like Kh-35, 3M-54, Exocet and Harpoon) will be employed against them.

Assuming that can be sucessfully done, then a decapitating strike against those targets can be done in the early stages of a conflict to neutralize the enemy's offensive military capability. For that a target package has to be developed and set in place. But for that, there has to be round-the-clock monitoring of high value targets. That is easier said than done, especially with targets that are mobile.

So for example, Pakistan via terrorists does another Mumbai style attack (but much larger casualties and significant damage to infrastructure...basically a reason to execute such a plan) then an option would be to take out much of Pakistan's offensive military capability in a retaliatory and quick strike. You need a signficant amount of stand-off weaponry on standby (launched simultaneously) for such a scenario. Destroy a large chunk of their offensive capability and they will be reeling. Their three Agosta boats, their Erieye airborne early warning aircraft, their P-3 Orions are some of the offensive military equipment that come to mind. But these are all mobile targets and difficult to track. Advantages of such a strike is no loss of Indian military personnel and no tactical nuclear attacks on Indian Strike Corps. The main disadvantage of such a plan, is if the strike fails. This is not a trial-and-error process. To maintain H&D, they might launch military offensives into Indian territory which our Holding Corps is more than a match.

A successful strike of that nature, will probably result in a nuclear launch from Pakistan. Easy for me to sit in comfort (far away from the Indian subcontinent) and type this. Let us hope such an outcome never occurs. War is not a joke and nuclear war even more so. Anyone who wishes for one, is senile....which Pakistani military planners are.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Nov 2017 06:25

There is a distinct (but perfectly understandable) difference in the attachment of the booster rocket motor to the end of the old (Saturn) Nirbhay missile and the latest (desi jet) Nirbhay missile
Old:
http://images.newindianexpress.com/uplo ... /After.jpg

New:
http://images.newindianexpress.com/uplo ... rbhay3.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Nov 2017 06:27

Avtar Singh wrote:
Maybe it is just my imagination running away.

It probably is. There is no way those rail guns are going to be able to traverse sideways and up and down to track a missile, and don;t forget power supply for the guns.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Nov 2017 08:46

Rakesh wrote: So for example, Pakistan via terrorists does another Mumbai style attack (but much larger casualties and significant damage to infrastructure...basically a reason to execute such a plan) then an option would be to take out much of Pakistan's offensive military capability in a retaliatory and quick strike. You need a signficant amount of stand-off weaponry on standby (launched simultaneously) for such a scenario. Destroy a large chunk of their offensive capability and they will be reeling. Their three Agosta boats, their Erieye airborne early warning aircraft, their P-3 Orions are some of the offensive military equipment that come to mind. But these are all mobile targets and difficult to track. Advantages of such a strike is no loss of Indian military personnel and no tactical nuclear attacks on Indian Strike Corps. The main disadvantage of such a plan, is if the strike fails. This is not a trial-and-error process. To maintain H&D, they might launch military offensives into Indian territory which our Holding Corps is more than a match.

My response here
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7608&p=2228896#p2228896

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 10:32

Indranil wrote:I think the definite range of Nirbhay in its current-turbofan-powered form is about 1100 kms and its speed is about 0.8M. This was established in its second test flight, when it was let to fly for as long as possible after all the test objectives were met. With optimizations, I bet the range can reach about 1600 kms.

Avinash Chander mentioned the range will increased to 2000 km or so.
They have a road map.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 10:34

Bart S wrote: Will it be possible/practical to make a cheaper (potentially) Paki-specific variant with lower range at lower cost or bigger warhead? Are those kinds of 'reconfigurations' easily possible or does it practically a totally new platform that needs its own set of R&D from scratch?

Possible, if user wants in such role.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Nov 2017 10:49

even with lower range ...the electronics wont change..the engine will not change ( unless we develop a new class of engine) ... so i dont think the cost is going to come down substantially. i dont beleive fuel is the expensive component in CM cost.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 10:54

Mollick.R wrote:As posted previously few pages back.
The guidance of Nirbhay is INS, RLG & GPS.
No IRNSS. We all know in GW1& 2 Khan lost Tomahaks because of mismatch in terrain mapping feature of Gulf Sand Dunes or they flown them in extended paths to get to follow some prominent land features.

Now the questions are
1. How much accurate is our INS +RLG combo for missile with 200 kg conventional warheads.

2. I assume for BMs Khan can deny GPS by monitoring parameters like 1. Speed 2. Altitude 3. Receiver Area of operation

It has same proven Robust guidance as in latest A5 with 5000 km range.
Usually accuracy of missile/guidance system is measured wrt range. Higher the range goes, accuracy alters. Accuracy is not measured against warhead weight.
So it has guidance system that has proven its accuracy at much longer ranges that the assumed range of the missile.

GPS term used here is more of generic nature. It means it uses such guidance that doesn't necessarily means it has US GPS or only US GPS. Bhmos uses combination of such guidance. As once reported it has GPS + GLONASS + Indian system.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 11:22

A Deshmukh wrote:Nirbhay cannot carry nuclear warheads.
speed being slow, higher chances can be shot down. nuclear warhead will be wasted / spilled with unintended consequences.

Today one may think of different speeds like subsonic, super/hypetsonic, in cold war days N tipped cruise missiles are provisionally meant for initial stages , BEFORE a full fledged N war where the bluk of the work will be carried out by Ballistic missile.

>>speed being slow, higher chances can be shot down. nuclear warhead will be wasted

Exactly. In other words, unlike BM which is very hard to shoot down, CMs can be shot down. So it provides enough room for bringing down the escalation.
What i am saying is N-CM provides a more flexible approach.

Whether Nirbhay carries N warhead is not based on its slow speed but more on how Indian forces like to conduct war. Even otherwise if there is N tipped CM it will be used.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 11:28

ashish raval wrote:
shiv wrote: MIRV
M-Multiple
I= Independent
R=Re-entry
V=vehicle

"re-entry" from where? From space.

A cruise missile flies like a plane and does not go into space, so the question of "re entry" does not occur.
Ok. I was thinking about multiple warheads rather than MIRV to be precise. But as said by R guru the payload is small so does not make sense as impact will be low..

Is it something like this you are looking for...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Nov 2017 11:31

Shiv saar & others...

Latest press release on Nirbhay test mentions loitering capability of the missile.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2017 12:00

Kanson wrote:
Indranil wrote:I think the definite range of Nirbhay in its current-turbofan-powered form is about 1100 kms and its speed is about 0.8M. This was established in its second test flight, when it was let to fly for as long as possible after all the test objectives were met. With optimizations, I bet the range can reach about 1600 kms.
Avinash Chander mentioned the range will increased to 2000 km or so.
They have a road map.

I trust that man.

Hakeem please check the pics from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th launch from similar angles.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 10 Nov 2017 17:19

manjgu wrote:even with lower range ...the electronics wont change..the engine will not change ( unless we develop a new class of engine) ... so i dont think the cost is going to come down substantially. i dont beleive fuel is the expensive component in CM cost.

True. Indranil-ji's point about air-launched being more practical for shorter range cruise missiles is spot on, and it takes away significant complexity and subsystems from a surface/sub launched cruise missile, as the aircraft that takes care of much of that requirement. A turbojet would be just fine for an air launched missile as well. Hope something along the lines of a JASSM (ideally with slightly longer range) would be in the works.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 10 Nov 2017 21:52

Any news of the repeat Nirbhay test or has it been scheduled for another time ?

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 11 Nov 2017 03:50

Kanson wrote:
ashish raval wrote: Ok. I was thinking about multiple warheads rather than MIRV to be precise. But as said by R guru the payload is small so does not make sense as impact will be low..
Is it something like this you are looking for...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Exactly the kind I was thinking about thanks for sharing..

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 11 Nov 2017 11:15

i would imagine even the fuel in a CM would magnify the conflagration if its hits a closer target with residual fuel in its tank !! bomb+sort of naplam effect ... !!!

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Nov 2017 12:24

PTAE-7 engine was made with re-use in mind in fact it has been tested for splash down in sea , recovery and then re-use so from material pov it was not conceived for one time use per se , all in all there is room to make it cheaper but that is probably not a priority item.

Mollick.R · Post by **Mollick.R** » 11 Nov 2017 13:42

Kanson wrote:
Mollick.R wrote:As posted previously few pages back.
The guidance of Nirbhay is INS, RLG & GPS.
No IRNSS. We all know in GW1& 2 Khan lost Tomahaks because of mismatch in terrain mapping feature of Gulf Sand Dunes or they flown them in extended paths to get to follow some prominent land features.

Now the questions are
1. How much accurate is our INS +RLG combo for missile with 200 kg conventional warheads.

2. I assume for BMs Khan can deny GPS by monitoring parameters like 1. Speed 2. Altitude 3. Receiver Area of operation
It has same proven Robust guidance as in latest A5 with 5000 km range.
Usually accuracy of missile/guidance system is measured wrt range. Higher the range goes, accuracy alters. Accuracy is not measured against warhead weight.

Sir, it was said in the context that if the accuracy of the missile is less (higher CEP) than for a missile with 200 kg conventional warhead, it will not necessarily mean sure shot destruction of intended target.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Nov 2017 15:40

^ CMs usually have very high accuracy.

-----------

ALCM has its own use & purpose.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 12 Nov 2017 21:02

Test-Firing of Brahmos Cruise Missile from Sukhoi-30MKI in Late November

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21246/ ... ghpRhnhXqB

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 12 Nov 2017 22:26

ashish raval wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Is it something like this you are looking for...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)
Exactly the kind I was thinking about thanks for sharing..

CBU-105 cluser bomb with IAF uses skeets which are anti armor sub munitions, Nirbhay being stealthy can be flying right on top of the targets delivering these skeets on whatever targets of opportunity it finds within the one hour window, its tasked that way - then make a recovery akin the Nishant's mode of using Parachutes and airbags.

Tired of waiting for the armed UAVs, either built or bought to come online and do this job of clearing ter-camps, with promised endurance etc etc

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 Nov 2017 23:48

ashishvikas wrote:Test-Firing of Brahmos Cruise Missile from Sukhoi-30MKI in Late November

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21246/ ... ghpRhnhXqB

From this

The success of the test-test firing would increase the combat range of the aircraft from the current 300 km to some 1500 km as the supersonic cruise missile can home in on targets over 1000 km away if launched from the air.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 13 Nov 2017 03:08

JayS wrote:
The success of the test-test firing would increase the combat range of the aircraft from the current 300 km to some 1500 km as the supersonic cruise missile can home in on targets over 1000 km away if launched from the air.

wait the combat range of LCA is 370Km and of Su-30 also 300Km?
And from when did a 300Km missile become 1000Km range

(Is MTCR: Maine Tujhe C banaya Re ? )

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2017 07:03

Its BS articld.