Brilliant find Karan.Karan M wrote:Indranil, remember this. You are (IMHO) absolutely on the right track. See Air Launched Missile on the right.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20
Dude. Talk about an elephantine memory!Karan M wrote:Indranil, remember this. You are (IMHO) absolutely on the right track. See Air Launched Missile on the right.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20
Based on the image, it seems to be rocket powered. So Kinzhal.Kartik wrote:Wow..is that our own version of Kinzhal or ASMP-A?
Yes. I have always supported acquiring a handful of Tu-160 to increase our strategic reach in short term. It would be a good platform to fire missiles like these from.Indranil wrote:It is rocket powered for sure. This is the Kh-15 equivalent
We have two separate plans for the ASMP-A-equivalent as well. One is the Brahmos-mini and the other will be based on the upcoming LFRJ engine.
I think we should invest in long range bombers if we are getting into these kind of missiles.
AD-1's fin structure is virtually identical. It will save a ton of work in modeling an airframe for hypersonic flight, no need to rerun tons of work for windtunnel stuff, CFD, weight planning, avionics packages. RCI/DRDL effectively use their resources for optimal effect.Indranil wrote:Additionally,another wild theory is that Rudra MIII is an offshoot of the upper stage of AD1.
1. Looks the same. See image below.
2. We know that AD-1 has to be capable of hypersonic flight.
3. Needs an IIR seeker
4. The dimensions make sense
5. The warhead choices make sense
6. The secrecy makes sense
I think what the article was impling was that recomendation was given to create land based Strategic N delivery missiles based on K series rather than a separate Agni series. That way there would have been commonality of production.ramana wrote: BTW if Adm Arun Prakash recommended scrapping Agni and concentrate only on K series he was not comprehensive.
In all major powers land based provide prompt response and protect the sea based deterrent which has its own short comings : bases, boats, accuracy
But all these are for deterrence thread.
So is difference in DNA of K and Agni missiles the reason why Agni VI has not been tested? Is evolution of K series more likely to be Agni 6 and perhaps even the reported Surya?Karan M wrote:Indranil, remember this. You are (IMHO) absolutely on the right track. See Air Launched Missile on the right.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20
I suspect that the 42 MKI's ordered in 2010 are capable of carrying significantly heavier payloads than the standard MKI's. To become aware of the possibilities, look up the weight of the air-launched Moskit. The GoI has planned well.Indranil wrote:Also, these missiles will grow in scope, weight and dimensions. The Su-30 won't.
And, Karan M, the Rafale can carry unusually heavy loads on a few of its hardpoints. How much? 2000 kg (as opposed to the max value of 1500 kg for the Eurofighter's "heavy" hardpoints). How much does the Air Launched Article weigh? 2000 kg.Karan M wrote:Indranil, remember this. You are (IMHO) absolutely on the right track. See Air Launched Missile on the right.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20
This was addressed by DRDO, the K series missiles carry a lot of excess weight in terms of heavier structures to deal with underwater pressure. The Agni series is hence more efficient weight wise. Also the Agni series have MaRVs which mean they too are not easy to intercept and need not follow the aero ballistic method for the shorter range K series versions (750km variants). Basically, the articles recommendations to replace Agni series with K missiles was flawed.JayS wrote:I think what the article was impling was that recomendation was given to create land based Strategic N delivery missiles based on K series rather than a separate Agni series. That way there would have been commonality of production.ramana wrote: BTW if Adm Arun Prakash recommended scrapping Agni and concentrate only on K series he was not comprehensive.
In all major powers land based provide prompt response and protect the sea based deterrent which has its own short comings : bases, boats, accuracy
But all these are for deterrence thread.
I have been perplexed about dumping of Shourya for a while now. But not sure how much to buy in on these things mentioned in the article.
Yes I meant Prahaar. AADs other name is Ashwin.Indranil wrote:Karan, small nitpick.
1. I think you meant AAD became Prahaar.
2. Although it was widely suspected that PDV became Pralay, it is quite certain, that Pralay is a single stage Shaurya. If you compare the drawings and dimensions, it will become very clear.
In general, india now has the building blocks of virtually any missile except hypersonic air breathing missile (nobody has quite mastered that yet). What a difference 35 years of dogged struggle has brought.
Well, range can always be traded for higher payload. But IMO, Shourya was (in addition to being a superior tactical G2G launch platfprm) a good candidate for A2AD for IOR in ground or ship launched version. Brahmos has awefully short range in ground launched and/or in lo-lo-lo mode. Shourya with its hypersonic manoeuvrable trajectory would have much better survivability in lofted trajectories. Plus given the complexities of kill chain over longer ranges, additional range cpability could have been useful to give a crucial few additional seconds in loiter for terminal target acquicision.i hope we develop a similar hypersonic missile soon.ramana wrote:JayS, Shourya is a hypersonic vehicle and its range is too much for Pak and too little for China.
Expect an evolution once the core technology is proven.
Rishi_Tri, I dont think so. A6 will happen as ballistic is still the king of delivery vehicles.
K series are hypersonic stable. A series are ballistic stable,
Both have their roles.
Indranil, there is institutional continuity in decision making via the SFC, that was ABVs real gift to India.Indranil wrote:Avarachan sir. Cannot agree with you. GOIs (even this one) can’t tell an elephant from an airplane. So, I have zero faith in their capability to plan in the nature you suggest. Yes, our Airforce and some babus can and they are making do with what they have, aka the Su-30.
But this is not ideal. The Brahmos-A is the biggest article that Su-30 can carry. Period. Not only is it at the edge of its hardppont limit weight wise, it could not be any longer, or any wider. The plane can barely pivot for takeoff or landing. The nose of the missile comes seriously close to affecting airflow into the intakes.
Rafale has no chance of carrying a Brahmos-A. It doesn’t have the ground clearance, nor hardppont capacity, nor power to handle these kinds of loads. One can imagine it carrying 1500 kgs at max on the centerline. And good luck asking the French to modify the Rafale to carry a custom load. It will break many a Swiss banks.
Brahmos has terminal acquisition and lock on via the Russian sourced seeker, until our local replacements enter mass production, we are constrained in terms of replacements. The Shourya is also larger than the Brahmos and that has ramifications for mobility, note the IA/IAF never really took to Prithvi because of its logistical challenges including its mobility issues. In short, Brahmos is a sniper weapon at range which fits into IAs doctrine. A Shourya at 700km, will it have the CEP to be likewise and does the IA doctrine support a mass effect weapon at that range, that's a whole different ballgame. Right now, Pralay is being developed to complement the Brahmos.JayS wrote:Well, range can always be traded for higher payload. But IMO, Shourya was (in addition to being a superior tactical G2G launch platfprm) a good candidate for A2AD for IOR in ground or ship launched version. Brahmos has awefully short range in ground launched and/or in lo-lo-lo mode. Shourya with its hypersonic manoeuvrable trajectory would have much better survivability in lofted trajectories. Plus given the complexities of kill chain over longer ranges, additional range cpability could have been useful to give a crucial few additional seconds in loiter for terminal target acquicision.i hope we develop a similar hypersonic missile soon.ramana wrote:JayS, Shourya is a hypersonic vehicle and its range is too much for Pak and too little for China.
Expect an evolution once the core technology is proven.
Rishi_Tri, I dont think so. A6 will happen as ballistic is still the king of delivery vehicles.
K series are hypersonic stable. A series are ballistic stable,
Both have their roles.
But someone mentioned sometime back here that dropping of Shourya was a CBM. Who knows if it has any truth in it.
Thanks for the info Karan. Its always difficult to take one sided claims without hearing the other side espeacially related to the key strategic platform related decisions. Our people know better than compromising such cruicial things over organisational turf war. Some things are non-negotiable, thankfully.Karan M wrote:This was addressed by DRDO, the K series missiles carry a lot of excess weight in terms of heavier structures to deal with underwater pressure. The Agni series is hence more efficient weight wise. Also the Agni series have MaRVs which mean they too are not easy to intercept and need not follow the aero ballistic method for the shorter range K series versions (750km variants). Basically, the articles recommendations to replace Agni series with K missiles was flawed.JayS wrote:
I think what the article was impling was that recomendation was given to create land based Strategic N delivery missiles based on K series rather than a separate Agni series. That way there would have been commonality of production.
I have been perplexed about dumping of Shourya for a while now. But not sure how much to buy in on these things mentioned in the article.
Also showed how closely need to know principles are in place at DRDO while working with different groups. The IN guys quoted in the article were very happy about the K series and were wondering why it could not replace the A series. Not a single RCI/DRDL or SFC guy opened his mouth to shoot out information either on why the A series remained the workhorse missile while media went to town with speculation. It took Dr VK Saraswat, to succinctly mention why the A series was the workhorse deterrent missile in Couptas walk the talk episode. IMHO, it was a good example of showing us, proper security principles plus well reasoned strategic decision making. Reassuring IMHO.JayS wrote:Thanks for the info Karan. Its always difficult to take one sided claims without hearing the other side espeacially related to the key strategic platform related decisions. Our people know better than compromising such cruicial things over organisational turf war. Some things are non-negotiable, thankfully.Karan M wrote:
This was addressed by DRDO, the K series missiles carry a lot of excess weight in terms of heavier structures to deal with underwater pressure. The Agni series is hence more efficient weight wise. Also the Agni series have MaRVs which mean they too are not easy to intercept and need not follow the aero ballistic method for the shorter range K series versions (750km variants). Basically, the articles recommendations to replace Agni series with K missiles was flawed.
There were reports on how Pralay, Prahaar was been brought about after the Doklam episode. PLA tibet's logistics node, gives an idea why having a 300-800KM is vital to knock off PLA support lines from the mainland. Specially when it will be difficult for IAF to hit, because of thick AD net.Karan M wrote: So the building blocks are being put in place. However the question remains about doctrine and ISTAR to support a 700km missile. Is the Army even investing in assets to support strikes 700km deep into enemy territory and does that not get into IAF roles.
My fascination with Shourya has been also from the perspective of its potential use on A2AD role in IOR. If we set up such hypersonic AShM missiles with ~1000km range in A&N, on mainland in S.India and on some island base near Maldives, it would provide a large umbrella to cover almost entire IOR of interest. Who operates them among the three services can be left for them to figure out - perhaps tri-command. The hypersonic maneuverable flight would provide cover against obsolescence of supersonic missiles against increasing anti-missile capabilities and a gap filler between the Supersonic Brahmos and Hypersonic missiles of the future. As of now we do not have the necessary kill-chain in place but we are slowly building up capability to cover the IOR at least.Singha wrote:>> Shourya has been left at the wayside, I suspect, because it is likely waiting for a proper use case from the services.
as per the known materials on web, Shourya could lob a brahmos type 300kg warhead out to 1500km. I think its use case has not yet arrived because IA has no assets like JSTARs or ELO drones to locate deep time sensitive targets upto 700km behind the line and in case IAF can strike these on call in a few hours of being called in. 4 IAF bombers will deliver a good payload vs the 1ton payload of shourya. cost is also a factor.
its real use case might come later whether from islands, mainland or deep silo missile truck cruiser ships in A2AD role vs Chinese carrier task forces to complicate and extend their defensive problem and extend our strike range.
I was also worried about shourya earlier, but not so now
There is a ongoing JV between DRDO and ISRO under project Kautilya. Another one of those projects which is not talked about much. Its supposed to be some space based ELNIT system or something like that.Singha wrote: JV between all organs LRDE, ISRO, the GMRT people in pune we need to pool resources and get this done.
I hope not as US has just scrapped the INF treaty in order to deploy hypersonic missiles of Shourya type. So if India has shelved its a mistake as they had early lead in intermediate hypersonic missiles. Its also possible that Shourya was the land based version of the K 15. As N^3 had said long ago hypersonic is the missile of the future.But someone mentioned sometime back here that dropping of Shourya was a CBM. Who knows if it has any truth in it.
