Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2018 03:54

Singha wrote:So we have our prithvi replacement as a conventional tactical precision strike missile

Yes, solid fuelled to boot with a longer range.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 09 Sep 2018 06:51

MIRV and ballistic launch are triggers and signals fir a nuclear conflict.

These are subtle signals for shift feom conventional ro nuclear conflict so are not used.

There have been cluster type munirions used to pepper a runway .
Detection of a high tonnage ballistic missile launch all the more with MIRV will be thought of and treated as a nuclear first strike

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 09 Sep 2018 11:05

nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.

Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.

One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.

Prithvi as part of IGMDP was envisaged to carry various types of warheads, including cluster canister; that makes sense when payload is heavy and navigation precision is good. The latter needed improvement in initial days, but for last many years it's a non issue. So time for precision cluster warhead has come.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 09 Sep 2018 11:13

prasannasimha wrote:MIRV and ballistic launch are triggers and signals fir a nuclear conflict.

These are subtle signals for shift feom conventional ro nuclear conflict so are not used.

There have been cluster type munirions used to pepper a runway .
Detection of a high tonnage ballistic missile launch all the more with MIRV will be thought of and treated as a nuclear first strike

Even Houties fire Scuds BM and that is non escalatory.
Short range BM are not escalatory imho.

Nuke wielding is not for faint hearted, countries without steel ball determination run high risk of inviting self destruction. So deal with signalling and deterrence dance.

Hard metal weapons are the real thing that matters in war, no matter if it is BM, super heavy payload or clustred for war fighting. And then nuke tipped types are for deterrence dancing and use.

Jmt.

Added later: RV is a must for 1400KM range IRBM. For 500 km range the re-entry does not need RV (See SCUD, Prithvi example) thus clustered aerodrnamic munition very feasible.

nam · Post by **nam** » 09 Sep 2018 15:02

Nukes response are on-impact, not on launch. For short range missiles, their ballistic height, would identify they are not declared nuke missile.

Iranians had fired their BM into Syria. US regularly fires tomahawk, which technically can carry nukes.

So on impact is rule.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2018 15:22

prasannasimha wrote:MIRV and ballistic launch are triggers and signals fir a nuclear conflict.

These are subtle signals for shift feom conventional ro nuclear conflict so are not used.

There have been cluster type munirions used to pepper a runway .
Detection of a high tonnage ballistic missile launch all the more with MIRV will be thought of and treated as a nuclear first strike

Submarine launched Pakistani cruise missiles with nuclear warheads are a not so far off threat to Indian mainland

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Sep 2018 15:37

Godrej & Boyce's journey from locks and safes to rockets and missiles
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/09/ ... s-and.html

nam · Post by **nam** » 09 Sep 2018 18:09

Hope Nirbhay production goes to Brahmos and they outsource it to Godrej. Behind the scene things are moving slowing in the right direction.

The 1400 tonne ammo explosion in the article caught my eye. That is 1.4 kil Ton, a TNW sized explosion!

Found a video about in youtube.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 09 Sep 2018 19:23

nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.

Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.

One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.

I think it is because of the physical constraints. Laws of physics don't allow MIRV to be efficient for range<3000-4000 km. I remember this was the primary reason no one really believed Ababeel's MIRV claim at 2200 km since you can't target more than 2 locations at that low range.

Some more knowledgeable members can weigh in on this topic.

nam · Post by **nam** » 09 Sep 2018 19:46

Trikaal wrote:
I think it is because of the physical constraints. Laws of physics don't allow MIRV to be efficient for range<3000-4000 km. I remember this was the primary reason no one really believed Ababeel's MIRV claim at 2200 km since you can't target more than 2 locations at that low range.

Some more knowledgeable members can weigh in on this topic.

A nuke MIRV requires to hit targets which are 10/100 km's apart. A conventional doesn't. All warhead in a conventional cluster are going towards the same place, expect they they need to target different point in the same .5 - 2km radius. So the release height will be much lower.

It is no different than a LGB release from a aircraft. So you are fundamentally replicating a LGB release, however each warhead having their own sensor+logic to hit a specific target.

I feel it is a more efficient use of a conventional BM, instead of wasting & building multiple BM. you need to build less number and overall cost is less.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2018 20:40

all cruise missile have intelligent submunitions.
our main problem is not prithvi or pralay but lack of nirbhay in bulk.

cruise missiles and drones were are badly behind china.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 09 Sep 2018 23:21

nam wrote:
A nuke MIRV requires to hit targets which are 10/100 km's apart. A conventional doesn't. All warhead in a conventional cluster are going towards the same place, expect they they need to target different point in the same .5 - 2km radius. So the release height will be much lower.

It is no different than a LGB release from a aircraft. So you are fundamentally replicating a LGB release, however each warhead having their own sensor+logic to hit a specific target.

I feel it is a more efficient use of a conventional BM, instead of wasting & building multiple BM. you need to build less number and overall cost is less.

Ok, I understand what you are saying now. The idea is valid if the goal is to destroy a runway. But mostly missiles aren't used for that. We have LGBs and other dumb bombs for that. Conventional BMs are used to take down a fortified structure/asset where you want to maximize penetrating/destructive power. You get more power with a single larger warhead than multiple smaller ones.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Sep 2018 00:03

nam wrote:My personal imagination running wild is to have a 2-3 ton payload 200/300/500KM BM. Create a cluster /IRV of 250KG/500KG.

Instead of firing multiple BM/CM, you fire one and the conventional Multiple Independent Vehicle hits different targets.

One missile could crater the whole runway at an airbase. I always wondered why no one tried creating a "MIRV" version of conventional BM.

Three TBMs proposed for air base attack were the conventional attack
missile (CAM-40) based on the Pershing missile with a 1,200-pound payload
of kinetic energy runway penetrators (KERP), the ballistic offensive suppression
system (BOSS) also known as AXE, based on the Trident with a
13,970-pound payload of conventional airfield defeat munitions (CADM),
and the total air base attack system (TABAS) with a 25-metric-ton
payload ...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234977.pdf

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Assault-Breaker.html

nam · Post by **nam** » 10 Sep 2018 11:36

So it is not just my imagination. Given that professional people have thought about it, I take such a solution exists.

May be classified, however it is there in some form or shape.

nam · Post by **nam** » 10 Sep 2018 11:39

Trikaal wrote: Ok, I understand what you are saying now. The idea is valid if the goal is to destroy a runway. But mostly missiles aren't used for that. We have LGBs and other dumb bombs for that. Conventional BMs are used to take down a fortified structure/asset where you want to maximize penetrating/destructive power. You get more power with a single larger warhead than multiple smaller ones.

BM with a large cluster would be used to attack heavily defended targets. You will not get to easily LGB a airbase. That is why solutions like CM, SAAW exists.

Airbase is just a example of use for a clustered BM. It could be used about any concentrated target.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Sep 2018 12:21

Pralay has been designed to use existing state of the art Prithvi warheads. Only the obsolete propulsion system is changed in the new missile. Plus advances in navigation, guidance and control systems added.

Prithvi had a large number of submunition warheads. Wish people referred to indigenous developments rather than go around all over the place.

Links edited.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Sep 2018 12:23

duplicate deleted

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Sep 2018 12:33

Tsarkar, can you remove Haram links to PK website?

nam · Post by **nam** » 10 Sep 2018 13:58

tsarkar wrote:Pralay has been designed to use existing state of the art Prithvi warheads. Only the obsolete propulsion system is changed in the new missile. Plus advances in navigation, guidance and control systems added.

Prithvi had a large number of submunition warheads. Wish people referred to indigenous developments rather than go around all over the place.

Was aware of this. I was more pointing towards heavier payload in the region of 250/500 KG node on these cluster, with it's own sensor.

American plan of 25 ton warhead, is some serious firepower. You are fundamentally replicating LGB/CM strikes more efficiently on a single platform.

Ofcourse the drawback is they have to be fired from land, compared to CM or LGB.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2018 14:01

Such heavy BMs pose both a logistical hassle, and also overlap into Nuke BM territory causing confusion and if the other side lacks sensors and goes hair trigger launch on warning, it can precipitate a crisis.

nam · Post by **nam** » 10 Sep 2018 15:22

Karan M wrote:Such heavy BMs pose both a logistical hassle, and also overlap into Nuke BM territory causing confusion and if the other side lacks sensors and goes hair trigger launch on warning, it can precipitate a crisis.

It will actually be a lighter footprint. 3 Prithvis versus a 3 ton Single BM. Such a missile will be under declared conventional role. There is no harm letting everyone know openly, what role it has. No country can afford to have on-launch response. They are not deterring anything by having on-launch.

Majority of Chinese BM have conventional role. Tomahawks are nuke tipped as well, however 100s have been fired. If Chinese bring out a "fat" version of DF-11, it will not make any difference to nuke deterrent.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 14 Sep 2018 12:21

Any updates on manik engine? Google doesn't provide any latest updates. Laat one being it flew for 2 hours.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2018 15:01

i find it surprising we cannot mass manufacture a CM engine that needs to run reliably only for 2 hrs and make gentle planned turns and climbs.

thats 100x simpler than a aero engine on all fronts.

even north korea would be making such engines.

does not have to be bleeding edge in weight and fuel economy.....a range of 1000km in 2 hrs would be a good start.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 16 Sep 2018 07:59

India successfully test fires made-in-India MP-ATGM anti-tank missile

New Delhi: In a major boost to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Make in India' initiative in defence, the DRDO today successfully carried out the first test of the indigenously designed and developed Man Portable-Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MP-ATGM), which would help the Army destroy enemy tanks during a war.

The first test of the missile was successfully completed in the Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. A few more tests of the indigenous weapon system need to be carried out before it is offered to the Army for user trials, government sources told MyNation.

The MP-ATGM is supposed to be the anti-tank missile of the Army for future as the force needs close to 75,000 such missiles for future battles. The homegrown missile would help in this direction in a big way, the sources said.

For meeting the emergency requirements of the Army, the government is looking to buy around a couple of thousand Spike anti-tank guided missiles from Israel while the majority of the requirements would be fulfilled by indigenous missiles.

The requirements of the Army are so huge that they will be met with the missile systems supplied by the Israelis along with the ones to be produced by DRDO in future as it is also developing the man-portable ATGMs, sources said.

The Army needs third-generation ATGMs, with a strike range of over 2.5 km and fire-and-forget capabilities, to equip all its 382 infantry battalions and 44 mechanised infantry units.

Sources said this combination of buying arms and equipment from abroad and allowing indigenous makes at the same time will balance the need for taking care of national security requirements along with the need to promote the indigenous industry.

The Ministry of Defence has been in talks with Israel and the US for a long time to get the third generation anti-tank missiles. The ministry had ultimately zeroed in on the Spike missiles under an old deal, which is likely to cost around Rs 3,000 crore.

The government had also withdrawn an earlier tender for buying around 5,000 Spike missiles after finding the price of the deal too high.

An American missile system on offer was rejected too — after the terms and conditions of procuring it were not found to be compliant to the Indian defence procurement procedure guidelines.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 16 Sep 2018 08:54

1. First time I noticed a test in ahmednagar
2. 75000 are we planning to fight we 2.2

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Sep 2018 14:41

A Sharma wrote:India successfully test fires made-in-India MP-ATGM anti-tank missile

.

This is really good news getting MP-Atgm's in numbers can be really useful in offensive ops and also take out Paki bunkers along the LOC.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Sep 2018 15:19

If that was a guided test then its a big deal.

nam · Post by **nam** » 16 Sep 2018 16:00

MPATGM is been developed with VEM.

DRDO is slowly creating a major changing by involving private players as major production partners. VEM, BF/Tata, Reliance for Arjun. Even Godrej, who now produce 70% of Brahmos.

It is a better way to involve private player, rather than the politically sensitive RFP process, where nobody gets anything and our defense suffers.

For major projects, DRDO should have partial production with DPSU ( to keep the unions at bay) and 2 private players.

ATAGS is the perfect template. Barrel is manufactured by OFB & BF. This keeps the OFB at bay and caters for their non-delivery as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Sep 2018 17:10

*yum-phatagam * news is wonderful music to ears. I hope it is light weight.

^yes, focus on external/private union(partnership)into products dev rather internal issues.

from the above link

The Ministry of Defence has been in talks with Israel and the US for a long time to get the third generation anti-tank missiles. The ministry had ultimately zeroed in on the Spike missiles under an old deal, which is likely to cost around Rs 3,000 crore.

The government had also withdrawn an earlier tender for buying around 5,000 Spike missiles after finding the price of the deal too high.

An American missile system on offer was rejected too — after the terms and conditions of procuring it were not found to be compliant to the Indian defence procurement procedure guidelines.

nam · Post by **nam** » 16 Sep 2018 17:39

From MoD, MPATGM

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Sep 2018 18:26

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1041280417079459843

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1041281332998021123

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Sep 2018 18:36

Second Flight Test of MPATGM Successful

Indigenously developed Man Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM), was successfully flight tested for the second time from the Ahmednagar range today. All the mission objectives have been met. The two missions on 15 and 16 September 2018 have been successfully flight tested for different ranges including the maximum range capability.

Raksha Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman congratulated the team DRDO, Indian Army and associated Industries for the twin success of MPATGM weapon system.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 16 Sep 2018 19:01

Nice! Congratulations to DRDO. Hope trials are completed on mission mode so that this Spike deal gets spiked once and for all.

On a side note, do we really need 75000 MPATGM? I was looking at Paki Armour numbers. Wikipedia puts their tanks around 5000 and armoured troop carriers around 3000. Even with a ratio of 5:1, 75000 seems a bit excessive. Maybe some more knowledgeable members can shed some light on Infantry tactics against armoured columns and what numbers are typically required?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Sep 2018 19:34

MPATGM are not used against tanks alone, they are used against bunkers, machine gun nests BMP's take out even Enemy artillery guns if you get close enough. And 2nd you can't be moving MP ATGM at the speed armour moves. We probably need more than 75k

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Sep 2018 19:36

the reason we need them to be light weight

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 16 Sep 2018 19:39

From above pictures, isn't it looking little bigger ? for being Man Portable.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Sep 2018 19:42

And no way Pakis have 5000 tanks more 1500. Pakis like to exaggerate nos

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Sep 2018 20:15

Trikaal wrote:Nice! Congratulations to DRDO. Hope trials are completed on mission mode so that this Spike deal gets spiked once and for all.

On a side note, do we really need 75000 MPATGM? I was looking at Paki Armour numbers. Wikipedia puts their tanks around 5000 and armoured troop carriers around 3000. Even with a ratio of 5:1, 75000 seems a bit excessive. Maybe some more knowledgeable members can shed some light on Infantry tactics against armoured columns and what numbers are typically required?

The numbers are high because they are distributed amongst formations. You cant stop the war and rush the centralized store of MPATGMS to the units in contact. So by necessity, multiple formations all need to have a decent number of ATGMs in service. Plus, you also need to factor in reserves, and also a wastage factor due to operator challenge, missile failure etc. Plus the MPATGMs will be used not just against tanks but vehicles, IFVs etc at range.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Sep 2018 20:25

its hard to comment on size without any human for reference.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Sep 2018 20:46

Supposedly 120mm, 1.3meter & 14.5 kg