Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19628
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 25 Dec 2017 18:13

Where DRDO can 't reinvent the wheel at speed, we will have no alternatives but to embark upon JVs.BMos is our most shining example.We must remember that the QRSAM has arisen becos of the failure over a decade ago of Trishul, meant to be a tri-service missile.At that time had we entered into a JV with say MBDA for such a missile, it could've been in service and serial production by now.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 571
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby nrshah » 25 Dec 2017 19:06

Philip wrote:Where DRDO can 't reinvent the wheel at speed, we will have no alternatives but to embark upon JVs.BMos is our most shining example.We must remember that the QRSAM has arisen becos of the failure over a decade ago of Trishul, meant to be a tri-service missile.At that time had we entered into a JV with say MBDA for such a missile, it could've been in service and serial production by now.


Sir, I am myself supporter of Russia.
However, why do you have to malign every indian program.
Which program does not see.failure
When Russian slbm was failing test, Shud they have dropped it and done JV with USA?
Things are.fine, we have tested success with SAM systems-- Akash and BMD to quote
These are.minor issues and will be sorted out

And what JV. with MBDA, we have been negotiating it for far.long without any consensus that is how QRSAM was.borne.... Remember Maitri

John
BRFite
Posts: 1827
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby John » 25 Dec 2017 19:41

Singha wrote:
John wrote:Barak 1 cost around 1/2 mil USD each so they are not that expensive. We don’t have breakdown for LR SAM but recent order for 4 systems for P-15B was around 650 million USD. So I expect LR SAM to cost more than QR SAM but Barak 1 should cheaper. Rather than introducing another SAM to complicate the supply chain why not just use what we have, to make matters worse Russia is going to shove Kashtan M1 and Vl shtil with Grigorovich order.


I believe israel has not invested in any Barak1-mk2 to tackle supersonic targets unlike RAM and ESSM which have seen constant rolling upg. the naval threat to israel is 0 and they are busy with arrow, david sling and iron dome on land.

IN is going to have supersonic ASMs fired at it, even by the Pakis in a few short years. anything we do has to work vs such targets not just harpoon, exocet and C-80x.

secondly there will not be any domestic R&D for any barak1-mk2 so gains are minimal.


I agree with you Barak-1 cannot handle supersonic missiles in fact it is not designed for it (it has very low terminal velocity makes it hard to intercept maneuvering supersonic SAM).

Thad said Israel has developed C-dome as alternative and has tested it against targets emulating yakhont type flight profile and is planning to use it to protect its off shore platforms from yakhont. The missile rounds are much cheaper than Barak-1 as well.

I am all for QR-SAM but it is insanity if navy wants to wait for naval variant which likely won’t be fielded for another decade. In mean time P-28 have no SAM system and likely same will happen with next gen missile corvette. I am not suggesting going out and buying C-dome but we need to look at alternatives.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2017 20:52

the cheapest foreign alternative would be the widely deployed ESSM. the latest model features a active x-band seeker and can hunt the target on its own after handoff by the ship radar.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19628
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 25 Dec 2017 21:10

Failure of Trishul is a fact, not fiction.Accept it.You succeed only from your failures.We couldn't do it alone.My reference to it was solely to not repeat the mistakes of the past.Perhaps it was overambitious dev. of tech which never arrived, or management, quality control,whatever.It was repeatedly tested including tests at Cochin.

BMos is a tremendous success.It is a JV. Why can't we emulate it in other missile programmes choosing the right partner and learning how it was done? I said MBDA just as an example.We've lost a decade since and warships, air bases and mobile SAM systems still are without such a vital system.The GOI , including the current govt. has repeatedly warned the DPSUs /DRDO about delays, etc.What did the DM NS just say about the MOD too?

Tall talk, fake promises, deadlines and cost over- runs plague some of our indigenous programmes.When will it end? China is streaking ahead of us every day the distance only expanding.They've just flown the world's largest amphibian! As China leaves us way behind, their achievements are passed on to Pak.The GOI has to take drastic steps to improve the entire defence establishment in India or we will one day suffer another humiliation as in '62.We don't have enough money.Report just a
few days ago about no money for big tkt warships under construction, money returned to the Fin.Min. leading to delays at shipyards.There must be freedom given to project heads along with accountability .Less babudom involved.

The failure of two tests will surely be overcome, like Nirbhay recently.It is gar better to have suffered failure at this dev. stage than during a crisis! Sub- launched missiles are toughest.Look at the Ru Bulava case.Sev. failures, sacking of a most distinguished missile scientist with a proven record of designing ICBMs.Naval ICBMs wasn't t his cup of tea.

But I reiterate, where we feel we do not possess the capability to go it alone, we must choose the right partner.
There are sev. European OEMs not just MBDA with whom we can discuss matters if reqd. reg. missiles.As mentioned I think in another td., supersonic anti-ship missiles will eventually be possessed by our enemies.We have to be a step ahead of them.Multi-layered missile/gun defences reduce the risk.Just one SAM system like B-8 on the DDGs in small number, probably due to cost, isn't enough when they have to provide air and missile defence for the CBG too.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 25 Dec 2017 23:10

ramdas wrote:Hope they test the K-4 soon after the defect is corrected and not wait for 10 more months. Rapid all up testing is better than overdoing simulations etc. North Korea’s recent successes show this clearly. A lot of time has already been lost between January (when a scheduled test did not take place) and now. Attempts to test once every few weeks are essential.



End to end NoKo test was a failure. The RV broke up into pieces and there are pictures to show that.
NoKo is hardly an example for DRDO.

Testing every few weeks, what will you gain? It takes a year to find a defect and rectify it.

deWalker
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby deWalker » 26 Dec 2017 00:08

kit wrote:Looking at the previous posts one comes to the realisation future of Indian warfare vs China will be fought in defence labs first as tech vs tech .. all the more important to support DRDOs efforts .They will need to retain their top talent


+1.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 26 Dec 2017 00:37

K4 didn't fire because the battery got drained! The reason came out as soon as the missile didn't fly off. Must have known that an old battery at end of its life was being used. Almost like car not starting because lights were left switched on and battery drained.

Anyway, on Safety Concerns, was looking for missile mishaps in silos etc. and came across this account of Titan II Missile exploding in its Silo with 9 Megaton Hydrogen Bomb on top. Of course many would know this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAUg2D1xYBk

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15568
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2017 01:18

Philip wrote:Failure of Trishul is a fact, not fiction.Accept it.You succeed only from your failures.We couldn't do it alone.My reference to it was solely to not repeat the mistakes of the past.Perhaps it was overambitious dev. of tech which never arrived, or management, quality control,whatever.It was repeatedly tested including tests at Cochin.


Your information is as usual, regarding indian programs woefully out of date. Trishul overcame its developmental hurdles including its 3 beam guidance for both the IA and IAF requirements & the revised guidance schema even had a technical paper released on the topic. For the Naval version, the key item to be demonstrated was interception over the sea, against sea clutter, something which was demonstrated by the Akash a few years back. The last few Trishul prototypes after successfully completing the development were to be transferred to the IAF. The only reason the IA/IAF did not take up the Trishul was because they wanted seeker equipped fire and forget missiles for their new requirements.

BMos is a tremendous success.It is a JV. Why can't we emulate it in other missile programmes choosing the right partner and learning how it was done? I said MBDA just as an example.We've lost a decade since and warships, air bases and mobile SAM systems still are without such a vital system.The GOI , including the current govt. has repeatedly warned the DPSUs /DRDO about delays, etc.What did the DM NS just say about the MOD too?


Brahmos is a success because India managed to contribute significantly from its own programs but in turn it gives up huge amounts of investment to its Russian partners who hold the key to things like range and flexibility. Strategic autonomy is not there.
Why should India go to any JV for the QRSAM now when the tech exists locally?
And Barak-1/Barak-8 are quite sufficient for the immediate short term.

Tall talk, fake promises, deadlines and cost over- runs plague some of our indigenous programmes.


Ah yes again with this talk regarding Indian programs, when the Russians with their decades of experience and huge infrastructure who often make fake promises, engage in tall talk and then miss deadlines while bankrupting the Indian exchequer. The French do likewise, so do the Israelis. But as usual you pick on indigenous programs. Is there some default program for engaging in this unseemly constant complaining whilst giving a free pass to imports and ignoring the tremendous hurdles local programs have to cross.
Indigenous programs cost peanuts in comparison to a single procurement program like the MiG-29Ks which deliver lemons to the IN which is now seeking to replace them with an expensive, proper naval fighter.

When will it end? China is streaking ahead of us every day the distance only expanding.They've just flown the world's largest amphibian! As China leaves us way behind, their achievements are passed on to Pak.The GOI has to take drastic steps to improve the entire defence establishment in India or we will one day suffer another humiliation as in '62.


Unlike India, China is looking after its own MIC, not seeking to prop up either the US or Russian MIC at the expense of its own.

We don't have enough money.


Which makes more eminent sense then that we invest in our local programs.

Report just a few days ago about no money for big tkt warships under construction, money returned to the Fin.Min. leading to delays at shipyards.There must be freedom given to project heads along with accountability .Less babudom involved.

The failure of two tests will surely be overcome, like Nirbhay recently.It is gar better to have suffered failure at this dev. stage than during a crisis! Sub- launched missiles are toughest.Look at the Ru Bulava case.Sev. failures, sacking of a most distinguished missile scientist with a proven record of designing ICBMs.Naval ICBMs wasn't t his cup of tea.


And then you follow it with:

But I reiterate, where we feel we do not possess the capability to go it alone, we must choose the right partner.
There are sev. European OEMs not just MBDA with whom we can discuss matters if reqd. reg. missiles.As mentioned I think in another td., supersonic anti-ship missiles will eventually be possessed by our enemies.We have to be a step ahead of them.Multi-layered missile/gun defences reduce the risk.Just one SAM system like B-8 on the DDGs in small number, probably due to cost, isn't enough when they have to provide air and missile defence for the CBG too.
[/quote]

So one failure and your complaining starts.

Seriously, what is with this complaining when a mere single test for a brand new system has a flaw, to fix such possible issues, is the entire purpose of the test to begin with.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15568
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2017 01:26

Barak-8 can handle supersonic threats.
A typical IN task force should at least have a few Barak-8 equipped ships.
That apart the current plan envisages a mix of imported SRSAM and a local development, not complete reliance on the local one, precisely to avoid any delay in deployment.

John wrote:
Singha wrote:
I believe israel has not invested in any Barak1-mk2 to tackle supersonic targets unlike RAM and ESSM which have seen constant rolling upg. the naval threat to israel is 0 and they are busy with arrow, david sling and iron dome on land.

IN is going to have supersonic ASMs fired at it, even by the Pakis in a few short years. anything we do has to work vs such targets not just harpoon, exocet and C-80x.

secondly there will not be any domestic R&D for any barak1-mk2 so gains are minimal.


I agree with you Barak-1 cannot handle supersonic missiles in fact it is not designed for it (it has very low terminal velocity makes it hard to intercept maneuvering supersonic SAM).

Thad said Israel has developed C-dome as alternative and has tested it against targets emulating yakhont type flight profile and is planning to use it to protect its off shore platforms from yakhont. The missile rounds are much cheaper than Barak-1 as well.

I am all for QR-SAM but it is insanity if navy wants to wait for naval variant which likely won’t be fielded for another decade. In mean time P-28 have no SAM system and likely same will happen with next gen missile corvette. I am not suggesting going out and buying C-dome but we need to look at alternatives.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15568
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2017 01:32

The Mail Today report noted:

Mail Today takes a look at the different projects including the missiles, which Defence Research and Development Organisation have developed indigenously and calculates the money the country has saved. SR-SAM (short range surface to air missiles) project for the Navy (expected cost : Rs 30,000 crore) The Navy wanted the capability to annihilate any incoming enemy aircraft, drones and cruise missiles at a short range altitude of 20-25 kilometres and was keen on going in for a European solution. Prior to this, Navy had also said no to the indigenous Akash missiles on the grounds that it wanted a more compact system.The DRDO then proposed to develop an indigenous canisterised version of the short range air defence missile.

Following this, the government decided to scrap the plan to buy the European missile in large numbers and go in for a Make in India solution. The defence ministry has now decided to go in only for limited procurements from abroad.


Again, this approach is now de-facto being done for all three services:

Navy - split procurement between Rafael ESM/ECM suites & Indian suite, to wait for development of Ellora EW suite which was developed and fielded.
Most recent example for the AF - SpyDer for short term needs while a new SRSAM is developed by DRDO.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2017 03:54

Rishi_Tri wrote:K4 didn't fire because the battery got drained! The reason came out as soon as the missile didn't fly off. Must have known that an old battery at end of its life was being used. Almost like car not starting because lights were left switched on and battery drained.

Anyway, on Safety Concerns, was looking for missile mishaps in silos etc. and came across this account of Titan II Missile exploding in its Silo with 9 Megaton Hydrogen Bomb on top. Of course many would know this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAUg2D1xYBk



My point is even new battery gets drained if there is an internal short due to metal particle. As electrolyte is stored separately its not a time or age dependent issue.

And if you watched the long PBS program on the Titan II fire and explosion the root cause was workman dropping a huge socket weighing over 10 lbs. It bounced of the floor and hit and punctured the hypergolic fuel tanks that caught fire.

How is that relevant here?

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 26 Dec 2017 04:40

ramana wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:K4 didn't fire because the battery got drained! The reason came out as soon as the missile didn't fly off. Must have known that an old battery at end of its life was being used. Almost like car not starting because lights were left switched on and battery drained.

Anyway, on Safety Concerns, was looking for missile mishaps in silos etc. and came across this account of Titan II Missile exploding in its Silo with 9 Megaton Hydrogen Bomb on top. Of course many would know this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAUg2D1xYBk



My point is even new battery gets drained if there is an internal short due to metal particle. As electrolyte is stored separately its not a time or age dependent issue.

And if you watched the long PBS program on the Titan II fire and explosion the root cause was workman dropping a huge socket weighing over 10 lbs. It bounced of the floor and hit and punctured the hypergolic fuel tanks that caught fire.

How is that relevant here?


Yes. Battery will get drained. Or new type was being tried, or perhaps smaller in size.

Titan not in context of sequence of events leading to failure but more on what may happen in the worst case of missile exploding in its silo or pontoon and what may happen to the warhead.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2017 04:48

Philip, It gets tiring to hear constant running down of Indian programs without an iota of new information.
Many members are complaining how you constantly bring in imports as way out.
Please consider your value on the forum.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2017 04:51

Rishi_Tri, There is near zero to zero of Indian missile exploding like the Titan as the K4 is solid fuel and is deflagrating and not detonating fuel. And the numerous relays and cutouts for the ignition signal.

As the battery drained and did not provide the arming voltage and was noted.

Please don't add to the swirl.
One more and have to ban you.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Dec 2017 05:37

BTW Agni 5 also had battery issue. Not sure if they are related

John
BRFite
Posts: 1827
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby John » 26 Dec 2017 06:17

Singha wrote:the cheapest foreign alternative would be the widely deployed ESSM. the latest model features a active x-band seeker and can hunt the target on its own after handoff by the ship radar.

Block II ESSM are few years away from seeing induction and I believe they will likely cost more than Barak-8. In fact they are both competing aggressively against each other in couple procurement process in other countries. CAMM might be cheaper alternative to both but we still have to sort out integration and we are still having to deal so many different SAM system operated by na vy.

I would stick with Barak-8 and work on point defense SAM similar system to RAM or gun/missile hybrid to replace venerable Ak-630 ( perfect project for private company to jump in integrate mistral or another missile in its class with 35mm caliber gun system).

That apart the current plan envisages a mix of imported SRSAM and a local development, not complete reliance on the local one, precisely to avoid any delay in deployment.


Yes but currently neither seems to going anywhere and we are left 2000 Crore vessels with no SAM system. At least bolt some iglas on them.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2017 07:19

ArjunPandit wrote:BTW Agni 5 also had battery issue. Not sure if they are related



Could be , could be not. Do you recall the press report?

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 26 Dec 2017 08:41

ramana wrote:Rishi_Tri, There is near zero to zero of Indian missile exploding like the Titan as the K4 is solid fuel and is deflagrating and not detonating fuel. And the numerous relays and cutouts for the ignition signal.

As the battery drained and did not provide the arming voltage and was noted.

Please don't add to the swirl.
One more and have to ban you.


Point taken.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19628
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 26 Dec 2017 09:05

Karan, Ramana, the point is that if Trishul did make the grade, why was it not adopted, at least by one service? The goalposts will keep shifting, IN wanting greater range, others fire and forget capability, etc.End result of that programme, we learnt a lot, but as a system that the services wanted a big zero.We're now repeating the effort with the QR SAM trying to go if alone again(?), hoping past mistakes are not being repeated.

The point I'm repeatedly making is that where we do not have all the answers, to provide the services with a system in time, JVs are essential.Saves time and money.Have we not done that with B-8 as well as BMos? It is now being fitted to principal warships.But B-8 is extremely expensive and too few rounds fitted aboard our DDGs meant to also provide cover for the fleet, CBG,
etc.Akash has been rejected by the IN, reasons given in an above post.Warships do require compact systems, lightweight and long life canisterisation, but was there no attempt to develop a med. range Akash silo launched?
Anyway, B-8's arrival with greater range has taken over that req.

There have been many critical articles about the IN in particular fielding warships without SAM's, ASW TAS sonars, ASW helos, etc.Including the VikA.We are fortunate that we've not had a conflict in recent times.The 20km range for BPDMS systems that the IN want can easily be resolved with the newer lightweight gun/ missile systems replacing Kashtan.In any case the 30mm galting has already become std. last ditch gun anti-missile system aboard most of the combat vessels.This would solve the problem that John has mentioned, better than using individual MANPADS.

I don't know if a smaller missile based upon B-8 ,using the same seeker, etc. could be developed, just as we're developing a smaller BMos-NG. This could replace the older Barak-1 systems and offer a cheaper standardised QR SAM which has the same missile intercept capability as a B-8.It would save time and money developing yet another missile.

PS: Parl. Standing Cmmttee on Defence "deeply anguished " ,that with each yr., "the revenue to capital outlay is deeply skewed as capital acquisitions for the services is declining in comparison to revenue allocations, adversely affecting the modernisation process of the forces."

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Dec 2017 09:43

ramana wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:BTW Agni 5 also had battery issue. Not sure if they are related



Could be , could be not. Do you recall the press report?

Dont think so there was any press release at that time. Though there were statements from S Christopher about the battery issue

Fourth Launch Test Of Agni-V Missile Stuck Due To Battery Issue: DRDO Chief

“It has been delayed because of a technical snag,” Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief S Christopher was quoted as saying by IANS. “There is a problem with the battery.”

The next test-firing of Agni-V is expected by the year-end. DRDO chief said: “Our colleagues have said the issue can be resolved. We will do a test before the end of this year.”

will there be any other test for agni 5??

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 26 Dec 2017 11:37

Karan M wrote:
So one failure and your complaining starts.

Seriously, what is with this complaining when a mere single test for a brand new system has a flaw, to fix such possible issues, is the entire purpose of the test to begin with.


Karan, Actually it is russians who need our guidance for their continuously failing programs such as Bulava slbm. Anybody can check its history on wikipedia. Hope they approach us and buy our Agni/K series technology which will alleviate their concerns wrt developing critical technologies.

bulava slbm
The missile's flight test programme was problematic. Until 2009, there were 6 failures in 13 flight tests and one failure during ground test, blamed mostly on substandard components. After a failure in December 2009, further tests were put on hold and a probe was conducted to find out the reasons for the failures. ...................... The missile did however continue to fail in the summer of 2013 and was not operational as of November 2013.[11] The Bulava is finally operational aboard Yury Dolgorukiy as of October 2015.[12] However, recent developments put this in question. In November 2015, the Vladimir Monomakh sub fired two missiles while submerged. One of the missiles self-destructed during the boost phase and the other failed to deliver its warheads to the specified target. After being sent back to the manufacturer, it was determined that the missiles failed due to manufacturing defects.


This after more than half a century of history of developing missiles and rockets along with other critical aerospace research and development. Which also includes the R&D done by German scientists captured after WW2.

The main problems with russian technologists are indiscipline and alcoholism because of which they are unable to deliver on quality and time.

Infact somebody on another forum had commented that situation in leading russian aerospace companies like mikoyan is so bad that many employees start drinking from morning itself. Sukhoi is slighly better in this respect as there people wait atleast till lunch. It sure looks like he was not far from truth.

Anyways russia does have a problem with alcoholism.For those interested check the following link.

https://qz.com/403307/russia-is-quite-l ... -to-death/

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19628
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Philip » 26 Dec 2017 12:06

The Bulava failures ,which I've regularly quoted as an example,were becos the distinguished BM scientist was not familiar with naval missiles,esp. sub-lunched ones,only land-based ones,not due to alcoholism,etc., which is in v.poor taste (pun intended-no idea what brand of vodka is being consumed!) but makes for hilarious thoughts! A vodka-fuelled Bulava.Great name for a cocktail what?! What will people ascribe Indian missile failures to then? Too much nimbu paani ,Hercules XXX rum and butter chicken? :rotfl: Putin replaced the gent with someone else who delivered.

The stop-gap ,"split-procurement" solutions,acquiring only a small batch for immediate reqs. and then developing a desi one later-with uncertainty as to when it will finally arrive, is only going to add to the inventory confusion,support and maintenance,let alone integration with the overall AD system.It would be far better to go the whole hog locally ,or evaluate and select a firang system that meets our reqs,as the IN did, seal the deal with a JV/TOT -as in BMos/B-8. A mere small-batch purchase will still keep us bound to the OEM for any problems and continued support. Unless substantial progress has been made with the desi system,which is around the corner,waiting for years for ships,etc. to be equipped with it is taking a huge risk. We already have a menagerie of anti-ship missiles,the most varied of any navy in the world,so there's little need to emulate that with the anti-air/missile types.

One option,if the split-procurement is inevitable due to prolonged delays,is to increase the number of systems acquired from abroad and use it throughout a particular class/batch of warship/warships. This would be more cost-effective.Future warships on the drawing board and some under construction which could accommodate the desi SAM without too much of difficulty.Those which are in n early stage in the builders yard, can wait for the desi missile which hopefully arrives on time for integration at fitting out time.[/b] There is also no guarantee that the desi missile will cost less.As a general yardstick this should happen,but look at HAL built MKIs,more expensive than those built in Russia.
Last edited by Philip on 26 Dec 2017 12:44, edited 1 time in total.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 26 Dec 2017 12:37

Philip wrote:The Bulava failures ,which I've regularly quoted as an example,were becos the distinguished BM scientists was not familiar with naval missiles,esp. sub-lunched ones,only land-based ones,not due to alcoholism,etc., which is v.poor taste,but makes for hilarious thoughts! What will people ascribe Indian missile failures to then? Too much butter chicken? :rotfl: Putin replaced the gent with someone else who delivered.

The stop-gap solutions,acquiring a batch for immediate reqs. and then developing a desi one later is only going to add to the inventory confusion,support and maintenance,let alone integration with the overall AD system.


And we have been designing missiles for last 500 years. Right.

Do you have the slightest idea how much you are contradicting yourself?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6941
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Indranil » 26 Dec 2017 12:42

Has the JV/ToT of Brahmos/B-8 got us the technology we wanted? Last I checked, critical parts of Brahmos still come from Russia. We are developing our Ramjet/Scramjet engines on our own. B-8 parts developed by Israel come from Israel. Have we been to reuse any of these technologies in other products?

On the other hand, the dual-pulse rocket technology that we developed for B-8 is now being adapted for a variety of projects.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby nachiket » 26 Dec 2017 12:51

Philip wrote:The Bulava failures ,which I've regularly quoted as an example,were becos the distinguished BM scientist was not familiar with naval missiles,esp. sub-lunched ones,only land-based ones,not due to alcoholism,etc., which is in v.poor taste (pun intended-no idea what brand of vodka is being consumed!) but makes for hilarious thoughts! A vodka-fuelled Bulava.Great name for a cocktail what?! What will people ascribe Indian missile failures to then? Too much nimbu paani ,Hercules XXX rum and butter chicken? :rotfl: Putin replaced the gent with someone else who delivered.

Well good for Putin and Russia that people didn't immediately start whining after one failed test and asking for JV's because they couldn't do it themselves.....unlike what I see here.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 26 Dec 2017 12:59

Indranil wrote:Has the JV/ToT of Brahmos/B-8 got us the technology we wanted? Last I checked, critical parts of Brahmos still come from Russia. We are developing our Ramjet/Scramjet engines on our own. B-8 parts developed by Israel come from Israel. Have we been to reuse any of these technologies in other products?

On the other hand, the dual-pulse rocket technology that we developed for B-8 is now being adapted for a variety of projects.


Exactly Indranil. The problem with JVs is that when the JV is being formed, a scope matrix is worked out immediately. The scope matrix lays out the responsibility of each side clearly. Both the parties then start work according to this scope matrix. The advantage of this approach is that accountablity is clearly fixed since each side is responsible for its work share.

The disadvantage of this approach is that what is not laid out in your work share, you dont get any experience for that part. WRT technological JVs, it means that you skip out on extremely important details like the Brahmos engine you talked about.

Actual TOT can only happen when Indian and Russian(or israeli or American) scientists and Engineers work under the same shed or in the same room. And complete technological result of that effort as well as IP will be shared by both parties. Each party can choose to develop and market the technology as they deem fit.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby darshhan » 26 Dec 2017 13:21

I Just put the import lover on ignore list. Man what a relief. If you read his one post, you have read them all.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Dec 2017 13:58

I wonder if it would be cost effective to convert the current akash interceptor into a two stage missile with a solid motor from pdv as a first stage which propels the missile to high altitude where it glides and the ramjet kicks in for the end game. At high altitude, the ramjet may be able to cruise the missile through for 70-100 km in level flight.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 26 Dec 2017 14:18

darshhan wrote:
Indranil wrote:Has the JV/ToT of Brahmos/B-8 got us the technology we wanted? Last I checked, critical parts of Brahmos still come from Russia. We are developing our Ramjet/Scramjet engines on our own. B-8 parts developed by Israel come from Israel. Have we been to reuse any of these technologies in other products?

On the other hand, the dual-pulse rocket technology that we developed for B-8 is now being adapted for a variety of projects.


Exactly Indranil. The problem with JVs is that when the JV is being formed, a scope matrix is worked out immediately. The scope matrix lays out the responsibility of each side clearly. Both the parties then start work according to this scope matrix. The advantage of this approach is that accountablity is clearly fixed since each side is responsible for its work share.

The disadvantage of this approach is that what is not laid out in your work share, you dont get any experience for that part. WRT technological JVs, it means that you skip out on extremely important details like the Brahmos engine you talked about.

Actual TOT can only happen when Indian and Russian(or israeli or American) scientists and Engineers work under the same shed or in the same room. And complete technological result of that effort as well as IP will be shared by both parties. Each party can choose to develop and market the technology as they deem fit.


Additionally, I see mostly India buys from that JV. Has Rusi purchased any Brahmos till now ?

Also, I think the components coming from foreign countries are priced heavily. So, its like 60-75% import onlee.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1335
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Bart S » 26 Dec 2017 14:59

ashishvikas wrote:
Additionally, I see mostly India buys from that JV. Has Rusi purchased any Brahmos till now ?

Also, I think the components coming from foreign countries are priced heavily. So, its like 60-75% import onlee.


Absolutely correct. The terms JV and TOT in the Indian context are the biggest dishonesty/scams around - the least that we do is be honest with ourselves - it is just screwdrivering with marginal actual experience gained at the R&D level (there might be some low-level production knowledge or experience gained).

And as you pointed out, the foreign components likely come with fat margins that we cannot negotiate down like in multi-vendor bids for outright purchases, so its the best of both worlds for the foreign vendor - they make a lot of money with a captive customer, plus can wash their hands of responsibility for the overall success of the project by blaming the Indian team.

Thakur_B wrote:I wonder if it would be cost effective to convert the current akash interceptor into a two stage missile with a solid motor from pdv as a first stage which propels the missile to high altitude where it glides and the ramjet kicks in for the end game. At high altitude, the ramjet may be able to cruise the missile through for 70-100 km in level flight.


Wouldn't that take it outside the effective range of the ground-based radars? Or do you mean some kind of loitering or extended chase range within the radar coverage zone?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2520
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby tsarkar » 26 Dec 2017 18:19

John wrote:
Singha wrote:I believe israel has not invested in any Barak1-mk2 to tackle supersonic targets...
I agree with you Barak-1 cannot handle supersonic missiles in fact it is not designed for it (it has very low terminal velocity makes it hard to intercept maneuvering supersonic SAM).


:shock:

http://www.rafael.co.il/MiniSite/4384-4 ... eting.aspx
Barak is a mature, operational anti-missile point defense naval surface-to-air missile system, designed to protect combat vessels against sea skimming missiles and aircraft threats. Barak is effective against highly maneuvering, supersonic and low altitude threats (sea skimmers), as well as low radar cross section (RCS) targets. It is also effective against a full variety of free space threats. The missile system is designed to engage multiple targets simultaneously. BARAK is in operational service in the naval forces of several countries.

Main Features:

Vertical launch
Unrestricted 360° azimuth coverage
Maintenance-free eight cell launcher
All missiles ready for instant firing
Radar CLOS guidance
Operation in day, night and adverse weather conditions
Short reaction time
Very short minimum range
Missile high rate-of-turn
Automatic and semi-automatic engagement
High kill probability



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 816917.cms
During the firing carried out in the Arabian Sea, the missile was fired against a live low flying high speed target. The target was successfully engaged and destroyed, a Navy official said.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby shiv » 26 Dec 2017 18:41

Thakur_B wrote:I wonder if it would be cost effective to convert the current akash interceptor into a two stage missile with a solid motor from pdv as a first stage which propels the missile to high altitude where it glides and the ramjet kicks in for the end game. At high altitude, the ramjet may be able to cruise the missile through for 70-100 km in level flight.

I think making such a missile, whether it is an Akash mod or totally new is possible.

The real issue would be targeting. Detection, tracking and homing in.

At 100 km what entity would detect the threat and know that it is a real threat? How would the high flying missile differentiate target from ground clutter with clarity a threat flying nap of earth 10 km below?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby srin » 26 Dec 2017 18:57

tsarkar wrote:
John wrote:I agree with you Barak-1 cannot handle supersonic missiles in fact it is not designed for it (it has very low terminal velocity makes it hard to intercept maneuvering supersonic SAM).


:shock:

http://www.rafael.co.il/MiniSite/4384-4 ... eting.aspx

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 816917.cms
During the firing carried out in the Arabian Sea, the missile was fired against a live low flying high speed target. The target was successfully engaged and destroyed, a Navy official said.



+1. From the youtube videos, Barak-1 seems extremely maneuverable.


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Dec 2017 19:45

Bart S wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:I wonder if it would be cost effective to convert the current akash interceptor into a two stage missile with a solid motor from pdv as a first stage which propels the missile to high altitude where it glides and the ramjet kicks in for the end game. At high altitude, the ramjet may be able to cruise the missile through for 70-100 km in level flight.


Wouldn't that take it outside the effective range of the ground-based radars? Or do you mean some kind of loitering or extended chase range within the radar coverage zone?


I meant it as a VLR/XR sam.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 313
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby Haridas » 26 Dec 2017 21:21

Thakur_B wrote:I wonder if it would be cost effective to convert the current akash interceptor into a two stage missile with a solid motor from pdv as a first stage which propels the missile to high altitude where it glides and the ramjet kicks in for the end game. At high altitude, the ramjet may be able to cruise the missile through for 70-100 km in level flight.

How will it impact the minimum engagement range specification?
Ramjet burn time change means a new engine design. The current design has come about after much experimentation. Ramjets are not trivial, ask the Ulanbatour yak herder on this forum.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1827
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby John » 26 Dec 2017 22:04

tsarkar wrote:
John wrote:I agree with you Barak-1 cannot handle supersonic missiles in fact it is not designed for it (it has very low terminal velocity makes it hard to intercept maneuvering supersonic SAM).


:shock:

http://www.rafael.co.il/MiniSite/4384-4 ... eting.aspx
Barak is a mature, operational anti-missile point defense naval surface-to-air missile system, designed to protect combat vessels against sea skimming missiles and aircraft threats. Barak is effective against highly maneuvering, supersonic and low altitude threats (sea skimmers), as well as low radar cross section (RCS) targets. It is also effective against a full variety of free space threats. The missile system is designed to engage multiple targets simultaneously. BARAK is in operational service in the naval forces of several countries.

Main Features:

Vertical launch
Unrestricted 360° azimuth coverage
Maintenance-free eight cell launcher
All missiles ready for instant firing
Radar CLOS guidance
Operation in day, night and adverse weather conditions
Short reaction time
Very short minimum range
Missile high rate-of-turn
Automatic and semi-automatic engagement
High kill probability



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 816917.cms
During the firing carried out in the Arabian Sea, the missile was fired against a live low flying high speed target. The target was successfully engaged and destroyed, a Navy official said.

The key there being speed of supersonic missile and engagement range against such missile which PR material is vague about. Barak-1 has top speed of 720 m/s which really limits its performance against AshM missiles that can do Mach 2+ during their terminal stage. Even Shtil had similar issues till they updated newer missile that can do Mach 3+.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby abhik » 26 Dec 2017 23:49

Have the Barak 1 or 8 ever been tested against actual supersonic targets like the Brahmos? Or are they just brochure capabilities? Proof of the pudding is in the eating onlee, Khan tests its SAMs (sea based at least) using a purpose built missile GQM-163 Coyote. Or we might end up with some lol worthy real world performance like the Patriot SAM against ballistic missiles in Gulf war 1.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2017 00:41

I believe that the Barak-8 has intercepted a virtual supersonic target system modeled after the performance of a Russian threat.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7342&start=1880#p2232289

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1230
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles News and Discussions - May 2017

Postby sudeepj » 27 Dec 2017 00:49

brar_w wrote:I believe that the Barak-8 has intercepted a virtual supersonic target system modeled after the performance of a Russian threat.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7342&start=1880#p2232289


How can capital assets, not to mention hundreds of lives, be sent in harms way on the basis of a mere virtual test? It has to be tested against an actual maneuvering missile before its declared to be capable of intercepting moskit/yakhont type threats.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests