Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 17 Jun 2018 00:28

The minuteman iii used a 3 MIRV payload. The Df-41 was initially tested some yrs ago with 2 mirvs. This was of course, not the operational configuration: 6-10 mirvs. Paki ababeel seems to have 3 warheads. Do they have a miniaturized high yield physics package?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 17 Jun 2018 00:32

It is also important to demonstrate Mirv payloads to prove the Pbv and rvs. Waiting to do this until a physics package is tested would cause further delays

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Jun 2018 01:44

mody wrote:
Indranil wrote:Agni IV is a technology feeder and may disappear over time. Agni 1 and Agni 3 will morph into much lighter Agni 1P and Agni 3P. These missiles will have all composite stages, electromechanical actuators and pinpoint accuracy with light weight navigation.

If you are trying to hit somewhere nearby, you don’t use an ICBM. Not only are they more difficult to move and hide than their smaller and lighter missiles counterparts, they provide significantly higher reaction time to enemy missile defense systems.

There has been a lot of speculation with regards to Agni-3P, but there is no official news about the same.
Except for 1 cryptic line in a news paper interview of Tessy Thomas, there is no evidence that any thing like this even exists.

Agni-IV was to be tech feeder for Agni-V, but I think it will remain service. Agni-2 and Agni-3 which are currently deployed, will remain deployed for another 10 years atleast, till they get replaced by Agni-IV and Agni-V.
Also, all official DRDO communication and writeups have always mentioned the payload capacity of Agni-III as 1.5 Ton. I have never come across any official statement that gives a payload capacity of 2.5 Tons. A 2.5 Ton payload without MIRV and without pure TN warhead is useless.
For fission weapons, 200KT is the max practical limit and for boosted fission weapons also about 400-500 KT is the max practical limit.
There is no justification for having a single 2.5 Ton warhead.

Over a period of time, we will probably have an arsenal of Agni-1P with a 500 Kg (hopefully 300-350 Kg, 100 KT) warhead and 1,500 Km range, Angi-IV all composite with single 500 Kg 150 KT warhead with a 5,000 Km range and Agni-5, all composite with MIRV with 1.5 ton payload capacity with 150 KT to 220KT warheads, range 10,000 Kms. Along with this, we will have the BO-5, same a Agni-1P, K-4 with a 3,500 Km range and 1.5 Ton payload capacity with MIRV and K5 with 5,500 Km range with 1.5 Ton payload capacity with MIRV.

A6 may come for range in excess of 10,000 Kms.

Every missile moving forward will be canisterized and road mobile. Although A4 has a TEL, it’s road mobility is limited because of its length.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 17 Jun 2018 04:17

ramdas wrote:Paki ababeel seems to have 3 warheads. Do they have a miniaturized high yield physics package?

They have more warheads. Indian inventory is not as substantial.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Jun 2018 07:40

vera_k wrote:
ramdas wrote:Paki ababeel seems to have 3 warheads. Do they have a miniaturized high yield physics package?
They have more warheads. Indian inventory is not as substantial.

And you know this how?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 17 Jun 2018 08:25

^
Wikipedia and available evidence of no MIRV.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 17 Jun 2018 08:52

vera_k wrote:^
Wikipedia and available evidence of no MIRV.

So if I edit the wiki page and mention that Agni has 20 MIRV you will accept it and just because Hans Kristensen with his assumptions and approximations says so about thr number of warheads we take it as gospel truth. HE has always underplayed India’s achievements. Furthermore it doesn’t mean that if something in not announced publicly does not means it does not exist.

If PS says that 2 MIRV was tested on 9 Nov 2015 test that I think it is reasonable to believe him even so it fits in with the time line (end of 2014) given by Saraswat in an interview in April 2012 for likely timeframe for MIRV testing.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 17 Jun 2018 12:48

ramana wrote:
ramdas wrote:@haridas: what is stopping the demonstration of MIRV tech by DRDO? Political constraints even under Namo or is there still some tech. development to be done before it is ready?
MIRV is not just the reentry technology but efficient high yield physics package.
Chander can talk about the former with authority.

MIRV is necessarily lower weight than single payload. So to be effective needs to be efficient. Or carry many. Not two or three.

Please do your own thinking too.

On the dot.

As an aside got it from a senior weaponeer that the Agony2 RV design from day one was to allow carrying at least three petals (on subsequent agony design). But of course by that time Dr. R Chidambram had not gifted the fizzle: .

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Jun 2018 12:53

vera_k wrote:
ramdas wrote:Paki ababeel seems to have 3 warheads. Do they have a miniaturized high yield physics package?
They have more warheads. Indian inventory is not as substantial.

somehow that is quite funny

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Jun 2018 13:05

A different way to Dhoti Shiver

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 17 Jun 2018 13:20

Missile development is just as much political as it is technical. I don't see India currently having the political will to go for MIRV publicly. Whether this is because of US pressure or the fear that china will supply pak with better weapons is not clear.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 17 Jun 2018 16:54

The current "open source" estimates are 200+ for Pak and 130-150 warheads for India. Why is this not credible?

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 17 Jun 2018 16:57

Ah, but we have demonstrated multiple separations in a single launch through ISRO. The Indian space programme and DRDO missile programmes work closely together or I miss my guess. If actual testing on a missile is politically verboten, we can and have done testing with ISRO before.

arun wrote:
Haridas wrote: A4 MIRV gas can only come for empty headed fotochor like Prasun Sengupta. Some may remember PS plagerized my AeroIndia photo of Dhruv and put it on cover page of Force. Editor Gazala Wahab moomin was pure as islam, when caught stealing, silence of helplessness. Sorry just venting anger at the photo-chor PS.
One thing though, a demonstration of an MIRV capability by India is long overdue. Doubly so given that the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan has formally announced a MIRV test (Maybe 2 of them IIRC),

In an interview dating back to April 21, 2012 T.S. Subramanian, Avinash Chander, then Chief Controller, Missiles and Strategic Systems, DRDO said that “MIRV may come in two and a half years from now” ie by October 2014. We are well past that date:

Frontline:

‘Quality our concern'

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 17 Jun 2018 16:58

Because we have enough enriched uranium and plutonium and heavy water for a lot more.

abhik wrote:The current "open source" estimates are 200+ for Pak and 130-150 warheads for India. Why is this not credible?

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Jun 2018 17:33

abhik wrote:The current "open source" estimates are 200+ for Pak and 130-150 warheads for India. Why is this not credible?

It doesn't tell you the full picture. Out of that claimed 200+, no ones says how may of them are TNW. If Pak are producing majority of them as TNW, then the number obviously will keep going up. Would there be chest thumping by Pak, if they come to know they only have TNW?

On the other hand, because we produce only strategic nukes, we don't need such large numbers. Our Pu stockpile is much much higher...

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 17 Jun 2018 18:32

I have been hearing about 1000+ warheads, MIRV/MARV, anti satellite weapons, scramjet, Kali DEW etc for more than 10 years without any evidence of them actually materializing. Now I have a healthy scepticism of such claims.

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Jun 2018 18:40

abhik wrote:I have been hearing about 1000+ warheads, MIRV/MARV, anti satellite weapons, scramjet, Kali DEW etc for more than 10 years without any evidence of them actually materializing. Now I have a healthy scepticism of such claims.

Has GoI claimed it has 1000 warheads? or operational MIRV or anti-satellite weapon or scramjet?

DRDO has claimed it is working on some of these tech. They have never claimed it is operational. What is wrong in this claim?

lakshmanM · Post by **lakshmanM** » 17 Jun 2018 23:48

Bit out of topic but -
From the late 80s, 1st column, 2nd red box reads: 'If unchecked, India could create a stockpile of nuclear weapons by 1995 that would be comparable in number to China's nuclear weapons arsenal.'

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jun 2018 00:15

the open source "estimates" are all kite flying ventures to cajole GOI into disclosing their numbers. GOI hasn't done so one way or another, unlikely it is going to anytime soon. taking these estimates (wild guesses) at face value is not advisable.

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 20 Jun 2018 21:49

BrahMos production rate

Extract: India currently imports 35 solid propellant boosters annually for the BrahMos cruise missile.

So does this mean we are making 35 missiles p.a.? Does anyone have info on the order book for BrahMos?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2018 21:59

ramdas wrote:The minuteman iii used a 3 MIRV payload. The Df-41 was initially tested some yrs ago with 2 mirvs. This was of course, not the operational configuration: 6-10 mirvs. Paki ababeel seems to have 3 warheads. Do they have a miniaturized high yield physics package?

Don't know about Pak would do some good to find out yields of the vehicles you are quoting.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2018 19:00

So Astra MK1 has a range of 60 km. QRSAM has. Range of 30 km and SFDR has a range of above 120 km. Akash 1S is guided by indigenous IR radar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jun 2018 20:21

@SJha1618
Following Following @SJha1618
More
As far as @DRDO_India's Solid-Fuel Ducted Ramjet project is considered, it is a joint project with Russia to develop a missile with a range of 120 km at an altitude of 8 km capable of flying at a speed of Mach 2.3-2.5. Source #DRDOAnnualReport2016

SFDR has an indigenously developed nozzle less booster and boron based ramjet sustainer

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 20:27

Indranil wrote:So Astra MK1 has a range of 60 km. QRSAM has. Range of 30 km and SFDR has a range of above 120 km. Akash 1S is guided by indigenous IR radar.

That range though is at around 8 km - 10 km. Not the highest range achievable which is tabulated at 15km.

Akash 1S has a RF seeker.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2018 20:55

Austin wrote:@SJha1618
Following Following @SJha1618
More
As far as @DRDO_India's Solid-Fuel Ducted Ramjet project is considered, it is a joint project with Russia to develop a missile with a range of 120 km at an altitude of 8 km capable of flying at a speed of Mach 2.3-2.5. Source #DRDOAnnualReport2016

SFDR has an indigenously developed nozzle less booster and boron based ramjet sustainer

All pictures and line diagrams of SFDR show it has a nozzle which expands the combustion gases. That's the only way you get thrust. Can't beat physics. However what DRDO means is there is no thrust vectoring nozzle but is a fixed nozzle acts like a venturi to expand the combustion gases. Even Sivakasi rocket has clay divergent nozzle..

Is the sustainer liquid fuel or solid fuel?
Either case, the boron compounds are used as boron metal is very reactive and gets oxidized easily. This is the property that makes it possible to be added to rocket fuels to increase the mass fraction just as Al power is used in solid fuel..

Rocket fuels are not easy to comprehend. They have intricacies to last a life time to understand.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2018 21:48

Karan M wrote:
Indranil wrote:So Astra MK1 has a range of 60 km. QRSAM has. Range of 30 km and SFDR has a range of above 120 km. Akash 1S is guided by indigenous IR radar.
That range though is at around 8 km - 10 km. Not the highest range achievable which is tabulated at 15km.

Akash 1S has a RF seeker.

Oops about the RF seeker. Regarding QRSAM, this is what the report says on Page 79.

QRSAM weapon system is capable of search-on-the-move, track on the move, and fire on short halts engaging multiple targets at ranges of about 30 km with two vehicle configuration for Area Air Defence.

So, I don't know if the missiles can engage targets at 30 km range or if that is the radar range.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 21:53

Indranil, I meant altitude, basically that Astra range mentioned as 60km is at med. altitude realistic conditions.

QRSAM will have a missile range of 30km. Radars range is 80km-120km (Surveillance/FC)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hq4uPQeLLKc/ ... Poster.JPG

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M1BUFCyN7DI/ ... 2BBMFR.jpg

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2018 23:41

ramana wrote:
Austin wrote:@SJha1618
Following Following @SJha1618
More
As far as @DRDO_India's Solid-Fuel Ducted Ramjet project is considered, it is a joint project with Russia to develop a missile with a range of 120 km at an altitude of 8 km capable of flying at a speed of Mach 2.3-2.5. Source #DRDOAnnualReport2016

SFDR has an indigenously developed nozzle less booster and boron based ramjet sustainer
All pictures and line diagrams of SFDR show it has a nozzle which expands the combustion gases. That's the only way you get thrust. Can't beat physics. However what DRDO means is there is no thrust vectoring nozzle but is a fixed nozzle acts like a venturi to expand the combustion gases. Even Sivakasi rocket has clay divergent nozzle..

The booster is nozzleless. This is the same config as Meteor. The the cross sectional area of the booster exhaust is still divergent.

ramana wrote: Is the sustainer liquid fuel or solid fuel?

Boron-enriched solid.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2018 23:47

Karan M wrote:Indranil, I meant altitude, basically that Astra range mentioned as 60km is at med. altitude realistic conditions.

QRSAM will have a missile range of 30km. Radars range is 80km-120km (Surveillance/FC)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hq4uPQeLLKc/ ... Poster.JPG

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M1BUFCyN7DI/ ... 2BBMFR.jpg

Thank you for those posters. This is a very serious development. 6 such missiles on an 8X8 vs 3 Akash Mk1s per 8X8. I would fathom that QRSAM is much cheaper than an Akash too. I am eager to see these deployed.

I am eager to know about Akash NG. That thing is sure to have a more than 50 km range. Then MRSAM/LRSAM, then XRSAM. India is developing seriously good and layered air defence capability.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2018 00:43

I am extrapolating a bit here, but I think Nirbhay's powered flight may be extended to 2 hours in the future which should increase its range by 70-80%

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jun 2018 01:06

Indranil, The divergent part is the nozzle. Its not thrust vector control type nozzle but is a nozzle from fluid mechanics perspective.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 22 Jun 2018 02:40

@ramana: the MM III has a ~300kt yield warhead. Leave that aside. DF-41 ~150kt x 10. That is not the point. Point is that even though the operational config. has 10 MIRV, 2 MIRV tests were conducted for experimental purposes (probably to prove a basic PBV/RVs combination before going in for tests of the operational 10 MIRV version).

With ababeel what yields do we know ? ~25 kt is the only proven yield with the Pakis too. Nevertheless, they go in for 3 MIRVed payloads. Both for greater ability to overcome ABMs and the potential for high yield payloads as and when they get a chance to test. For the same reason, we too should not hold back from MIRV tests. Single warhead payloads would soon lose credibility as and when PRC goes for mass production of ABMs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jun 2018 05:15

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1009412992306425857 ---> Image depicts DRDO's Man Portable Anti-tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) during a pop-out test.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2018 09:04

ramana wrote:Indranil, The divergent part is the nozzle. Its not thrust vector control type nozzle but is a nozzle from fluid mechanics perspective.

No sir, they are not the same. A nozzleless motor does not have a nozzle. And they pay the price in lower Isp (at least 15%). The exit may be shaped like a cone (as you see in SFDR) for slightly higher Isp, but it has to be very carefully chosen. Outside a a very narrow range of good choice, the Isp actually falls.

The reason they go for nozzleless design are:
1. Cases where the propellant is extremely fast burning, where a nozzle doesn't affect Isp significantly ( and is sometimes detrimental in the rarest of cases)
2. Simplicity of manufacturing (and hence lower cost) vis-a-vis an ejectable nozzle. Obviously, a simple design has higher reliability.
3. It has been found that if the booster is designed carefully, nozzleless motors can actually provide higher overall energy. This is possible because the volume that would have otherwise been taken up by the ejectable nozzle can be filled up with more propellant. So lower efficiency but higher fuel fraction.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2018 09:58

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1009412992306425857 ---> Image depicts DRDO's Man Portable Anti-tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) during a pop-out test.

Yes, Saurav Jha is a phenomenal reporter.

Some other details in the report:
1. Fire and forget
2. Top attack
3. Day and night capable
4. man portable: 14.5 kg and minimum lateral CG offset
5. Proto seeker front end relaized and testing done in Pokhran in Sept'17
6. Soft launch (to protect operator from hot exhaust gases)
7. Integrated static tests for TVC completed
8. Stand alone tests for precursor charge and main charge carried out
9. Tandem warhead testing in progress.

In short, this missile should be ready in 2-3 years. No wonder every body is making a beeline to transfer technology and set up license production in India!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Jun 2018 10:32

Well with most of the technology in place as a result of the nag program. It was always a question mark for me, as to why we were looking at imported weapon rather than developing in house solution.

I am happy with the test. It is 7 or 8 year behind time. But as they say. Better late than never.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Jun 2018 11:23

ramana wrote:
All pictures and line diagrams of SFDR show it has a nozzle which expands the combustion gases. That's the only way you get thrust. Can't beat physics. However what DRDO means is there is no thrust vectoring nozzle but is a fixed nozzle acts like a venturi to expand the combustion gases. Even Sivakasi rocket has clay divergent nozzle..

Is the sustainer liquid fuel or solid fuel?
Either case, the boron compounds are used as boron metal is very reactive and gets oxidized easily. This is the property that makes it possible to be added to rocket fuels to increase the mass fraction just as Al power is used in solid fuel..

Rocket fuels are not easy to comprehend. They have intricacies to last a life time to understand.

What nozzle-less means is that there is no separate metal nozzle which would be thrown away after the booster operation. The Solid propellant grain is shaped at the end in a way that gives nozzle shape. As IR said, it does affect Isp but gain in weight, simplicity of construction et al more tha compensate for the loss.

Also Boron particle is rather tough thing for start of burning but once burning starts its vigorous. Aluminum is much easier to burn in comparison. But since Boron packs highest energy density known to us (among all combustible fuels) its used nonetheless. Because of this secondary combustor design becomes tricky because one needs to design it in a way which gives rather hot zone right in the middle of large amount of cold air and at the same time the pathlines within the combustor should be long enough to give needed resident time inside it so Boron particles have enough time to burn. Around 30% boron is used typically. Rest is solid propellant which is half burnt in primary combustor to create gaseous fuel which is burnt later in Secondary combustor. The thrust control system is a tricky thing as mathematically speaking its unsolvable so to speak. In simple terms more variables less equations, system response is in opposite direction you want very rapidly initially and only slowly it shifts to intended direction. So if you ask for more thrust, the thrust would drop drastically very rapidly and slowly it would recover and asymptotically reach to the intended value. There are a bunch of tricks need to be used, hence SFDR is difficult to master and only a handful countries have the technology.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Jun 2018 11:28

Pratyush wrote:Well with most of the technology in place as a result of the nag program. It was always a question mark for me, as to why we were looking at imported weapon rather than developing in house solution.

I am happy with the test. It is 7 or 8 year behind time. But as they say. Better late than never.

Who seats at the top matters a lot in India. We have seen in last few years a plethora of programs which basically leveraged existing technologies and came up with a new product in double quick time. Low hanging fruits. I don't think DRDO has delivered so many successful products in such short time before. Yes, we can argue endelessly that its based on decades of hard work, but in my mind there is no doubt that the change we see has a lot to do with the mandate right from the top.

We has a clear-cut stated target of doing away with any sort of missile import by 2022. Which looks very achievable. My pet peeve still is lack of CCM program.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 22 Jun 2018 13:26

This photograph will be the final spike(pun intended) in Spike's coffin. Hopefully no more news of Spike buys will surface.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Jun 2018 21:34

JayS wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Well with most of the technology in place as a result of the nag program. It was always a question mark for me, as to why we were looking at imported weapon rather than developing in house solution.

I am happy with the test. It is 7 or 8 year behind time. But as they say. Better late than never.
Who seats at the top matters a lot in India. We have seen in last few years a plethora of programs which basically leveraged existing technologies and came up with a new product in double quick time. Low hanging fruits. I don't think DRDO has delivered so many successful products in such short time before. Yes, we can argue endelessly that its based on decades of hard work, but in my mind there is no doubt that the change we see has a lot to do with the mandate right from the top.

We has a clear-cut stated target of doing away with any sort of missile import by 2022. Which looks very achievable. My pet peeve still is lack of CCM program.

indeed. And the refreshing aspect is that DRDO is now achieving its objectives on a much better time bound schedules.