Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 04 Jun 2018 16:57

^At least the pic made public does not show an MIRV being tested.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jun 2018 17:10

ashish raval wrote:Question for gurus. Do we have any antiship missile which can fight wars in littloral seas? <= 120km range? If so which one it is ? If not do we hqve anything in development?

won't Exocet and Dhanush fit in those roles. Remember reading here, that Dhanush could be used

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jun 2018 17:26

Weight Dia Height [Pi*(D2)*H/4] Range
DF 31 42 2.25 13 52 7,200–8,000
A5 50 2 17.5 55 5,000–8,000
Is DRDO that inefficient?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 04 Jun 2018 17:30

ArjunPandit wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Question for gurus. Do we have any antiship missile which can fight wars in littloral seas? <= 120km range? If so which one it is ? If not do we hqve anything in development?
won't Exocet and Dhanush fit in those roles. Remember reading here, that Dhanush could be used

I don't think Dhanush can be used as a ASM its too bulky and doesn't have a guidance system for anti-ship roll
Most probably BrahMos-NG under development would be the missile for this roll

John · Post by **John** » 04 Jun 2018 17:59

ashish raval wrote:Question for gurus. Do we have any antiship missile which can fight wars in littloral seas? <= 120km range? If so which one it is ? If not do we hqve anything in development?

Not sure I follow you, Brahmos can be used in those ranges and can fly lo-lo profile greatly increasing its effectiveness. But there is currently in short range Ashm in development by Drdo for launch from helos and smaller vessels ( possible replacement for Uran).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2018 18:17

ArjunPandit wrote:Weight Dia Height [Pi*(D2)*H/4] Range
DF 31 42 2.25 13 52 7,200–8,000
A5 50 2 17.5 55 5,000–8,000
Is DRDO that inefficient?

Other than cheeni bs on the internet what is the src of the df31 figures ? I see parades with a canister launcher no real meat

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Jun 2018 18:32

kit wrote:some reports say MIRVs tested ?

MIRVs on A5 were announced 5 or 6 years back by Shri. Saraswat, IIRC. The expected timeframe was 2015. Later on, it was speculated that only A6 would have them. For many years now, DRDO had said that MIRV was on the design table which simply meant that MIRV capability was already there (there can't be any surprise in this) and a political decision was pending.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 04 Jun 2018 19:51

Haridas wrote:
vasu raya wrote:This flex nozzles in all stages bit seems to suggest (just extrapolating) a K4 type 3d maneuvering trajectory to defeat Chinese ABMs.
Flex nozzle based booting phase manuvering could somewhat help mask spacebased sensors by reducing their accuracy of estimated azimuth and elevation. That is first key to cue abm radars to narrow down the search volume. But that is not much of an handicap to abm systems during warlike condition.
What all stage flex nozzles do offer is greatly reduce weight of velocity correction package on the RV / mirv bus. IOW better nail to tail ratio of warhead.

I think re-entry tip or nozzle has to be blunt and not sharp ( just like blunt ends of high end Russian US missile. It has something to d with drag in atmosphere. Would like some knowledgeable gurus to dalo parkash on it

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 04 Jun 2018 20:22

In context of A-5, we can all guess but can't see ... choli ke niche kya hain

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 04 Jun 2018 21:12

ArjunPandit wrote:Weight Dia Height [Pi*(D2)*H/4] Range
DF 31 42 2.25 13 52 7,200–8,000
A5 50 2 17.5 55 5,000–8,000
Is DRDO that inefficient?

Excellent question !
Df31 carries warhead that has high 'yield to weight ratio',
A5 carries leisurely heavy warhead that has poorer yield to weight ratio.

The scaling impact and cost to field (and maintain) weapon system is fantastically higher due to this deficiency for sub-surface weapon systems. People mostly fail to understand the handicap posed by unproven Thermo Nuke warhead.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 04 Jun 2018 21:15

RKumar wrote:In context of A-5, we can all guess but can't see ... choli ke niche kya hain

Padded bra hai.

Make believe bum fantasy.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jun 2018 22:06

Singha wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:Weight Dia Height [Pi*(D2)*H/4] Range
DF 31 42 2.25 13 52 7,200–8,000
A5 50 2 17.5 55 5,000–8,000
Is DRDO that inefficient?
Other than cheeni bs on the internet what is the src of the df31 figures ? I see parades with a canister launcher no real meat

Excellent point, I would assume the the display wouldnt be independent, I mean it is not easy to fit Ayesha takia in Sonam kapoor's clothes

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jun 2018 22:13

Haridas wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:Weight Dia Height [Pi*(D2)*H/4] Range
DF 31 42 2.25 13 52 7,200–8,000
A5 50 2 17.5 55 5,000–8,000
Is DRDO that inefficient?
Excellent question !
Df31 carries warhead that has high 'yield to weight ratio',
A5 carries leisurely heavy warhead that has poorer yield to weight ratio.

The scaling impact and cost to field (and maintain) weapon system is fantastically higher due to this deficiency for sub-surface weapon systems. People mostly fail to understand the handicap posed by unproven Thermo Nuke warhead.

To be clear are you saying DF31 has lower payload and carries more efficeint warhead, whereas A5 carries a heavier but more efficient warhead. Wouldnt a lower CEP and MIRV/MARV negate this disadvantage? Also, I remember reading that we moved on to the simulation after P2 (although I find it very implausible given that officially we have <10 data points)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2018 22:27

Hungry jackal?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2018 22:27

If they ever release the end zone video of the Agni 5 we will get some clarity.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 04 Jun 2018 23:50

John wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Question for gurus. Do we have any antiship missile which can fight wars in littloral seas? <= 120km range? If so which one it is ? If not do we hqve anything in development?
Not sure I follow you, Brahmos can be used in those ranges and can fly lo-lo profile greatly increasing its effectiveness. But there is currently in short range Ashm in development by Drdo for launch from helos and smaller vessels ( possible replacement for Uran).

Guess Brahmos will be expensive option for 100km range isnt it? Smaller version of brahmos can be good thing and the option you suggested under developmrnt with drdo.
Realised we have klub, uran, krypton etc ..not to mention exocet on scorpene and loads of missile boats

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2018 00:22

Yes a 700 kg, subsonic sea skimmer is a gap in our desi development. Nirbhay is the closest thing that we have in development now. But, a smaller lighter version may be desirable for smaller boats.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2018 00:23

AD1 has come up to the point where ARDE can build fuses for its warhead.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 05 Jun 2018 08:06

ArjunPandit wrote:
Haridas wrote: Excellent question !
Df31 carries warhead that has high 'yield to weight ratio',
A5 carries leisurely heavy warhead that has poorer yield to weight ratio.

The scaling impact and cost to field (and maintain) weapon system is fantastically higher due to this deficiency for sub-surface weapon systems. People mostly fail to understand the handicap posed by unproven Thermo Nuke warhead.
To be clear are you saying DF31 has lower payload and carries more efficeint warhead, whereas A5 carries a heavier but more efficient warhead

I said the opposite for A5's anemic but heavy warhead. IOW A5 carries a heavier but LESS efficient warhead.

Wouldnt a lower CEP and MIRV/MARV negate this disadvantage?

First the myth that Chinese or Western warhead delivery accuracy has very poor CEP; say of the order of 300-900 meter compared to Indian superduper CEP of 10 meters. No basis for that myth. Unbiased assessment would be India and other P5 missile CEP is < 50 meters.

Secondly after a certain point CEP does not trade-off yield.
A precisely delivered sivakasi rocket dead-center of my house varanda will mess up a flower pot or two.
That accurate dead-center CEP doesn't deliver as compared to 5 Kg mortar bomb delivered 5 yards off CEP=0.

Now MIRV/MARV:
1. Does other P5 do not have MIRV? They do.
2. It is fallacious to compare offsetting yield of single petal of their MIRV, with combined effect of all petals of Indian MIRV.

Equating 50 MIRV missiles of enmy, Indian will need 300 MIRV missiles. Who is the sucker in this picture?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 05 Jun 2018 08:22

^^thanks for the clarification sir. May not be an appropriate question for this forum, but why are our designs so inefficient. I dont think barring US russia any other P5 did that extensive testing. NATO block may have got designs/simulation data from US but not sure about china

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jun 2018 08:25

Dhanush developed from Prithvi was developed some time back as a quickie to put part of our second strike capability against Pak at sea. Now that the Arihant class SSBNs are steadily arriving, the need for Dhanush reduces steadily.It is a cumbersome missile launched from an OPV. Newer Agni series of land based missiles and Prahar , will fill the role of erstwhile Prithvi.However, those stocks of Prithvi if still having a goodly lifespan, could be used for tactical strike instead of strategic purposes.It all depends upon the numbers equation that we need both for countering Pak and China.Together they outnumber us in quantity according to western sources. Therefore until we have sufficient numbers of delivery systems and matching numbers of warheads, if not more, Prithvi/ Dhanush could still serve as strat. missiles until production of other alternatives take over.

The 600/900km BMos- H is eagerly awaited.When that arrives, the legacy missiles could take a back seat or even be exported to countries like Vietnam, etc.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 05 Jun 2018 10:04

ArjunPandit wrote:^^thanks for the clarification sir. May not be an appropriate question for this forum, but why are our designs so inefficient.

Design of what ? Fission? FBF ? Thermonuke?
First two types we r good and proven good.
Thermonuke have best lightweight high yield property, but India needs another one or two iterations to prove it is good. PoK2 shakti test fizzled , and Miano Mohan sold away TN weaponization by capping that path.

So let India and our progeny enjoy our inefficient design, while they filled their personal coffers.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 05 Jun 2018 10:16

ArjunPandit wrote:I dont think barring US russia any other P5 did that extensive testing. NATO block may have got designs/simulation data from US but not sure about china

China has some of the best LIF high energy labs (plural) with physist teams (plural), and demonstrated mastery in form of published papers to prove they have mastered the knowhow to use it at will for military nuke purposes. Not to mention few iteration of Fusion tests that yielded good design to weaponeer and then field prove.

India otoh has capped condom with Lead lining. Mauni Miano Singh ko kiski maal pehnauu?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 05 Jun 2018 10:42

Haridas wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:I dont think barring US russia any other P5 did that extensive testing. NATO block may have got designs/simulation data from US but not sure about china
China has some of the best LIF high energy labs (plural) with physist teams (plural), and demonstrated mastery in form of published papers to prove they have mastered the knowhow to use it at will for military nuke purposes. Not to mention few iteration of Fusion tests that yielded good design to weaponeer and then field prove.

India otoh has capped condom with Lead lining. Mauni Miano Singh ko kiski maal pehnauu?

Nothing stops India today from doing another test. China won't allow us entry into NSG and powers don't want to make room at UNSC. What to do?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Jun 2018 11:02

^^ Please take the N stuff related discussion to relevant thread. TIA.

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Jun 2018 12:26

Haridas wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:^^thanks for the clarification sir. May not be an appropriate question for this forum, but why are our designs so inefficient.
Design of what ? Fission? FBF ? Thermonuke?
First two types we r good and proven good.
Thermonuke have best lightweight high yield property, but India needs another one or two iterations to prove it is good. PoK2 shakti test fizzled , and Miano Mohan sold away TN weaponization by capping that path.

So let India and our progeny enjoy our inefficient design, while they filled their personal coffers.

Guess its a good policy for India to keep everything ready to test the moment Americans sanction India with some acronym .. a full and comprehensive series of test blasting away the Pokharan with enough data yield for simulation tests

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 05 Jun 2018 12:49

With the current US administration they would even announce CTBT as null and void saying they could have better negotiated the treaty

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Jun 2018 13:21

** Guys, another admin has already asked to stop the N-related discussion here. Take this as a warning. **

mody · Post by **mody** » 05 Jun 2018 15:26

Our efforts to gain entry into NSG and China's opposition to the same might be precisely for further testing by India.
That is what I have speculated about in the Nuclear thread.

Without small thermo nuke warheads, MIRV will not make sense. China had also reportedly managed to steal the W87 warhead design from USA.

They have and have demonstrated a thermo nuclear design. Not sure about the recent test by NoKo. It was speculated to be in the range 200KT. Not sure if it was a Fusion Boosted Fission test or a Thermonuclear test.

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 05 Jun 2018 16:08

[/quote]
Guess Brahmos will be expensive option for 100km range isnt it? Smaller version of brahmos can be good thing and the option you suggested under developmrnt with drdo.
Realised we have klub, uran, krypton etc ..not to mention exocet on scorpene and loads of missile boats
[/quote]

What is krypton ? You have forgotten teh 'ood 'old Styx which of course should be on its way out

John · Post by **John** » 05 Jun 2018 16:45

ashish raval wrote:
John wrote: Not sure I follow you, Brahmos can be used in those ranges and can fly lo-lo profile greatly increasing its effectiveness. But there is currently in short range Ashm in development by Drdo for launch from helos and smaller vessels ( possible replacement for Uran).
Guess Brahmos will be expensive option for 100km range isnt it? Smaller version of brahmos can be good thing and the option you suggested under developmrnt with drdo.
Realised we have klub, uran, krypton etc ..not to mention exocet on scorpene and loads of missile boats

IN paid much more for Exocet Sm-39 than Brahmos.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2018 22:02

Indranil wrote:Future Astra is not based on the Brahmos motor at all. If anything there are lessons learnt from Akash. But the motor and fuel in general is very different.

Meanwhile, Akash NG will most likely be canisterized. The inside of that canister (for testing its short burn motor) measures 367 mm X 367 mm X 4863 mm. There will be a guide rail on the top, and one wing rail each on the two sides. Draw your own conclusions.

Courtesy: DRDL tender.

Courtesy another DRDL tender, the diameter of Akash NG is 250 mm, down from 350 mm on Akash. The length is down from 578 cm to 465-ish cm range. So, you can expect Akash NG to weigh less than half of the current Akash missile. Lighter, with longer range, with active seeker (may be even dual). This is world-class!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Jun 2018 23:07

ashish raval wrote:
John wrote: Not sure I follow you, Brahmos can be used in those ranges and can fly lo-lo profile greatly increasing its effectiveness. But there is currently in short range Ashm in development by Drdo for launch from helos and smaller vessels ( possible replacement for Uran).
Guess Brahmos will be expensive option for 100km range isnt it?

Brahmos range in lo-lo-lo profile is 120km only.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Jun 2018 23:11

Indranil wrote: Courtesy another DRDL tender, the diameter of Akash NG is 250 mm, down from 350 mm on Akash. The length is down from 578 cm to 465-ish cm range. So, you can expect Akash NG to weigh less than half of the current Akash missile. Lighter, with longer range, with active seeker (may be even dual). This is world-class!

Great stuff. We are catching up with the world in only 2-3 iterations. If only we stop importing and focus on desikaran.

BTW I thought the news about EU stopping Meteor integration is a welcome one. I hope MoD/IAF will push Astra -2 and SFDR rather than keep begging for Meteor. I feel its over-rated anyway. Astra-2 will pack a decent punch in itself. SFDR will extend it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2018 23:27

Meteor is overrated in my opinion too.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 05 Jun 2018 23:52

Indranil wrote:Yes a 700 kg, subsonic sea skimmer is a gap in our desi development. Nirbhay is the closest thing that we have in development now. But, a smaller lighter version may be desirable for smaller boats.

How can you forget your posts about various types of small turbojet engines being developed by DRDO? And secondly, even with same 4kn engine but 1/3rd the fuel & 1/3rd the warhead, smaller battery, smaller size etc, one is already looking at 800kg missile.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2018 23:54

I thought of them while typing the message, but I don't know if those 1kN and 2.75 kN engines are tied to anything.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jun 2018 23:58

Waiting to see which radars will be used for Akash NG. LLTR Ashwini is a given. Wonder which FCR.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 06 Jun 2018 00:05

Indranil wrote:I thought of them while typing the message, but I don't know if those 1kN and 2.75 kN engines are tied to anything.

My guess would be stealth design Anti Ship subsonic cruise missile will use 2.75kn engine.

dkhare · Post by **dkhare** » 06 Jun 2018 00:57

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote: Courtesy another DRDL tender, the diameter of Akash NG is 250 mm, down from 350 mm on Akash. The length is down from 578 cm to 465-ish cm range. So, you can expect Akash NG to weigh less than half of the current Akash missile. Lighter, with longer range, with active seeker (may be even dual). This is world-class!
Great stuff. We are catching up with the world in only 2-3 iterations. If only we stop importing and focus on desikaran.

BTW I thought the news about EU stopping Meteor integration is a welcome one. I hope MoD/IAF will push Astra -2 and SFDR rather than keep begging for Meteor. I feel its over-rated anyway. Astra-2 will pack a decent punch in itself. SFDR will extend it.

Exactly my thoughts when I read the news reports. Go ahead and deny us. It will only make us stronger, self reliant. Can't wait to watch this project turn into a world class missile hopefully in the same range & capability specs, at a fraction of the cost.

Only a matter of time...