Indian Missile Technology Discussion

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 24 Dec 2008 06:25

Question from a total newbie in this area:

Can a private R&D institute contract from the Govt to work towards developing/sourcing/acquiring base techs (like CFD) for AESA tech?

I am just wondering if there is a different model for DRDO to operate with. A darpa style contract and fund model which should be corruption proof and transparent to combat corrupt babucracy.

I am interested in starting something up in those lines, I have some long term plans to do something but I am not sure whether its viable. Maybe the Garus can help me out with it.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Dec 2008 07:07

From a not so good source

In this case, the weapon uses the high-powered microwave (HPM) effects found in Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar technology. These radars have been around a long time, popular mainly for their ability deal with lots of targets simultaneously. But AESA is also able to focus a concentrated beam of radio energy that could scramble electronic components of a distant target. Sort of like the EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) put out by nuclear weapons.

source :http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/ ... 81223.aspx

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 Dec 2008 08:58

Arun_S wrote:Thus if I understand your point that by PRF change you are suggesting that effective power can be increased by longer waveform to yield greater processing gain (because PRF for a set range in tracking or surveillance mode is limited by time of flight for the beam, and in some cases by the duty cycle of the high power RF source).

So far we are only concentrating on range of a radar due to power constraints but actually range also depends on the time required for one full scan of airspace. Same radar when used for 360 search will yield a lesser detection range than when employed for search in a sector for the same scan time. If you wish to have a slower scan the range can be increased. Generally, during a scan, the echoes which are received at the receiver after the Tx/Rx cycle has completed are discarded. By decreasing the PRF i.e. increasing the time period of Tx/Rx cycle, one is giving more time for the wave to travel and hence greater range. Though decreasing PRF has nothing to do with increasing the firing time of Tx to increase the average power output. I am not too sure whether higher firing time is desirable as it leads to increase in min detection range or blind region of a radar but minimum detection range in a BMD is insignificant.

Cheers....

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 24 Dec 2008 12:27

My two NPs on the detection and tracking:

Detection range is always greater than tracking range, by the logic that you need to detect before you can track. Now, Arun is perfectly right that the antenna gain is more in tracking mode. But tracking needs more amount of power returned, so this effect is kind of neutralized. So, in toto, the best you can get is the detection range is equal to the tracking range.

But, the point missed here is the background clutter. The BMD sensor regime assume that you are looking at the black sky as background. The RCS/detection figures are worked out based on that. The formulae changes when you look at the Shourya flying through lower altitudes.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 24 Dec 2008 16:48

SaiK wrote:http://sniperz11.blogspot.com/2008/02/d ... ility.html

This blog says that radar dome is around 90 feet, this much bigger than dimensions of greenpine radar which i think is 21 feet length and near US famous X-Band radar.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 24 Dec 2008 17:07

Dileep wrote:My two NPs on the detection and tracking:

Detection range is always greater than tracking range, by the logic that you need to detect before you can track. Now, Arun is perfectly right that the antenna gain is more in tracking mode. But tracking needs more amount of power returned, so this effect is kind of neutralized. So, in toto, the best you can get is the detection range is equal to the tracking range.

But, the point missed here is the background clutter. The BMD sensor regime assume that you are looking at the black sky as background. The RCS/detection figures are worked out based on that. The formulae changes when you look at the Shourya flying through lower altitudes.

Shourya's powered flight flew at 50Km altitude. The LoS radio horizon @ 50km is 930km, IMO the ground clutter will force looking up above 2 degrees elevation and beam shaping to minimize horizon. Useful LoS range for that altitude will likely be ~600km, but as of now trying to detect a 0.02m square target will be very difficult.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 Dec 2008 19:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhC-ImsBGQ

At 2:55 - Extended mode uses two vertical beams instead of three and increases the detection range. Most probably it is increasing the average output power by converting three beams into two. This explains range increase by increasing the input power since scan time is same.

At 3:04 - Radar operates at two speeds. 6 RPM for TWS and 12 RPM for fire control. So by varying the scan time and decreasing PRF, range is increased for TWS mode at the expense of refresh rate. So search mode automatically has more range than track mode because refresh rate required is not that high.

Cheers....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2008 22:32

Dileep wrote:The BMD sensor regime assume that you are looking at the black sky as background. The RCS/detection figures are worked out based on that. The formulae changes when you look at the Shourya flying through lower altitudes.

no wonder its easier to have decoys. / coming to think of it, how much of it is the LRTR functions to have the logic and algos to differentiate its a decoy or the real ballistic. one aspect is the history, that is the traversal, and if we dont have that history, any which way to detect by the way the decoys move or accelerate in mid course?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 01:19

India's powerful BrahMos anti-ship missile

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 01:22

DRDO to develop new UAV

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 25 Dec 2008 17:57

Raj Malhotra wrote:
SaiK wrote:http://sniperz11.blogspot.com/2008/02/d ... ility.html
This blog says that radar dome is around 90 feet, this much bigger than dimensions of greenpine radar which i think is 21 feet length and near US famous X-Band radar.

Hehe.... I see that you have found that post. Thanks for posting it. (To prevent conphujan, Me=Sniperz11... jus culdnt use the non-human name here, could I). I jus saw my blog stats and got shocked to see a huge spike... worries that Khan CIA's had found it dispersed when I fondly noted the BRF link....

The dimensions, I got from the Googel earth measuring scale... jus to let u all know.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 25 Dec 2008 18:03

SaiK wrote:
Dileep wrote:The BMD sensor regime assume that you are looking at the black sky as background. The RCS/detection figures are worked out based on that. The formulae changes when you look at the Shourya flying through lower altitudes.
no wonder its easier to have decoys. / coming to think of it, how much of it is the LRTR functions to have the logic and algos to differentiate its a decoy or the real ballistic. one aspect is the history, that is the traversal, and if we dont have that history, any which way to detect by the way the decoys move or accelerate in mid course?

making decoy is very hard even for most advanced nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Dec 2008 18:13

Gerard wrote:India's powerful BrahMos anti-ship missile

this is by BRFite Hari Sud.

sir, nitpicking:
>> brahmos land-attack version has been inducted in the army.
>> shore based anti-ship version has also been inducted in army.
>> a little snippet of the s-maneuver could have been added, after all it is that ability along with the speed that makes brahmos the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 25 Dec 2008 21:29

One question for ABM gurus...

When we do not know if the incoming missile has a nuclear/chemical/biological or conventional warhead, how prudent is it to destroy it with an ABM? For all we know. we may be spreading the NBC wastes over a larger area right?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Dec 2008 21:35

the risk even if it happens is still lesser than the detonation na ?

moreover much of the material will get burnt up in the atmosphere.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 25 Dec 2008 21:48

Provided we hit it exo and all "active" particles are small enough to burn up. Even then, any relief effort would have to be carried out on a broader area. Please correct me if I am wrong.

**May be the question doesnt belong under this topic, do move it if necessary

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Dec 2008 22:03

at around 30 km for the AAD very little will actually survive the return journey. PAD impact is at a even higher alt.

you have to understand that warheads are encased within protective shields and even a small rupture could ensure a catastrophic destruction rendering the warhead useless.without protective cover the constituents would very quickly burn away.

next, WMDs are stored in stable configurations and are activated only before impact in order to lessen the chances of accidental detonation. there is little chance that the constituents will accidentally combine to produce the active configuration in case of a BMD impact. the chances are about the same as broken shards of a mirror forming the mirror on juggling in a bag.

so all in all, residual material, if any would still be relatively harmless as it approaches the surface.

When we do not know if the incoming missile has a nuclear/chemical/biological or conventional warhead, how prudent is it to destroy it with an ABM?

so what would be prudent according to you ? let it impact as designed ?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 25 Dec 2008 23:35

Thanks, think I got the point! My only doubt was that the chemical/biological elements remaining active when it reaches the ground. In that scenario, we would be spreading their effect over a larger area - greater effort in relief and containment.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Dec 2008 01:50

Anti-tank Nag missile test-fired successfully

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 26 Dec 2008 10:28

And when the trials are done, the Army will say that since Nag does not have a ballistic trajectory, and multiple warheads, it does not satisfy GSQR.

Send RFPs to Russia, France ........

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 26 Dec 2008 10:35

sombhat wrote:And when the trials are done, the Army will say that since Nag does not have a ballistic trajectory, and multiple warheads, it does not satisfy GSQR.

Send RFPs to Russia, France ........

Given the current war like scenario, we can probably expect the army to have a saner attitude towards indigenous R&D

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 27 Dec 2008 01:39

aditp wrote:
sombhat wrote:And when the trials are done, the Army will say that since Nag does not have a ballistic trajectory, and multiple warheads, it does not satisfy GSQR.

Send RFPs to Russia, France ........

Given the current war like scenario, we can probably expect the army to have a saner attitude towards indigenous R&D

Dont forget that Nag can be easily annihilated by the "Nevala" of money and corruption.

It is never done till it is done.

Unwise to celebrate Diwali before it is Diwali. Cant afford to be caught off guard.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Dec 2008 10:28

Maybe a dumb question. Is there an operational doctrine for Nag? Dont know of any anti-tank missile that requires a dedicated tracked platform (like Namica). Most anti tank missiles are either "MANportable" or fired from choppers, or designed to be fired from an MBT. Namica would probably be the first of its kind. Or am I making a mistake?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 27 Dec 2008 10:55

somnath wrote:Maybe a dumb question. Is there an operational doctrine for Nag? Dont know of any anti-tank missile that requires a dedicated tracked platform (like Namica). Most anti tank missiles are either "MANportable" or fired from choppers, or designed to be fired from an MBT. Namica would probably be the first of its kind. Or am I making a mistake?

The Namica does seem to be a unique one off concept. AFAIK the IA isnt known for any goundbreaking initiatives. Going with the conventional MANportable" or fired from choppers concept seems to be a more logical approach.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Dec 2008 11:10

I know this sounds a bit like a jingo's wet dream but if the Nag clears into op service I would imagine that the DRDO would be able to develop a system similar to the NLOS-LS. I think a system like that will be very handy in the plains of Punjab and others to stop an armoured thrust.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Dec 2008 11:14

The Namica does seem to be a unique one off concept. AFAIK the IA isnt known for any goundbreaking initiatives. Going with the conventional MANportable" or fired from choppers concept seems to be a more logical approach.

Thats where the danger lies. In absence of a doctrine, it becomes a case of "buy the hardware and then figure out what to do with it". There is a chopper launched HELINA version, but thats a few years away. Till then, it would be interesting to see whether IA has an operational need/doctrine for a Nag type system. Wont be surprised if it is inducted in token quantities - and this time, would be for good reason.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Dec 2008 11:38

^^^
I think the chopper NAG version in theory will not have a problem as it will be coming online about the same time as the LCH.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 27 Dec 2008 12:54

if we were to load about 200+ of Nags on a transport like IL-76 which does a high speed high altitude dash towards a paki armored column and releases them at a distance away such that the free fall flight path of these missiles takes them in the 6km bubble around the column, they deploy chutes until target acquisition and zoom in releasing the chutes

one could have either central control for target selection from another aircraft(s) possibly so as not to hit the same target

or have swarm intelligence where each neighborhood nag makes a decision and a split second after it acquires its target and dives, another one makes a target acquisition decision and dives and in under a few minutes all would have cleaned a armored column.

if you think about it, the changes to the existing Nag system will be minimal

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 27 Dec 2008 13:15

There are bombs to do that why would you waste 200 huge, heavy and expensive missiles to do that.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 27 Dec 2008 13:35

vasu_ray wrote:if we were to load about 200+ of Nags on a transport like IL-76 which does a high speed high altitude dash towards a paki armored column and releases them at a distance away such that the free fall flight path of these missiles takes them in the 6km bubble around the column, they deploy chutes until target acquisition and zoom in releasing the chutes

one could have either central control for target selection from another aircraft(s) possibly so as not to hit the same target

or have swarm intelligence where each neighborhood nag makes a decision and a split second after it acquires its target and dives, another one makes a target acquisition decision and dives and in under a few minutes all would have cleaned a armored column.

if you think about it, the changes to the existing Nag system will be minimal

Any transport aircraft, approaching within that distance of a armoured strike corp is likely to be knocked down first.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Dec 2008 14:04

vasu_ray wrote:if we were to load about 200+ of Nags on a transport like IL-76 which does a high speed high altitude dash towards a paki armored column and releases them at a distance away such that the free fall flight path of these missiles takes them in the 6km bubble around the column, they deploy chutes until target acquisition and zoom in releasing the chutes

one could have either central control for target selection from another aircraft(s) possibly so as not to hit the same target

or have swarm intelligence where each neighborhood nag makes a decision and a split second after it acquires its target and dives, another one makes a target acquisition decision and dives and in under a few minutes all would have cleaned a armored column.

if you think about it, the changes to the existing Nag system will be minimal

The IAF is reportedly buying the CBU105 SFW to be used in the case mentioned above.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 27 Dec 2008 14:12

vasu_ray

Post subject: Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion Reply with quote
if we were to load about 200+ of Nags on a transport like IL-76 which does a high speed high altitude dash towards a paki armored column and releases them at a distance away such that the free fall flight path of these missiles takes them in the 6km bubble around the column, they deploy chutes until target acquisition and zoom in releasing the chutes

High Speed - high Alt Dash...Well, that would be wonderful...so the IL flies at lets say M1 - M1.8 and at an altitude of like 70000 ft...where it will be out of range of all SAM and also the porki AF. Or do we plan to convert the IL into a super-stealth a/c by replacing the aircraft skin by 100% composite, angular geometry panel and the Engines to be enclosed by RAM Mesh and IR supressors on the tails....well then this is a great idea.....Coz if we dont do the above modifications the Super-Mushak (armed with a porki 50cal) can also make mincemeat out of the aircraft. But Hey...i forgot the gunner station on the tail on the IL...well The IL can pull like a 6-7G maneuver and the SM is history...
And Why 200 mijjiles...the NAG weighs in at 42 Kgs...+ the seeker (6km BUBBLE)...+the parashoots...so lets say 50Kgs....the payload cap of the IL is in excess of 50000 kgs...so like a 1000 mijjiles...and with two a/c doing what is envisaged...we can clear up almost all the porki armour!!! WHOOOPPPEEEE.....
And yes we could also increase our defence spending...help the PSU's etc etc...(COST factor)
Why dont you start writing on the Possible Military Scenarios thread...we sure could do with some funny scenarios on that one...then Adminullahs can declare jehad on that and move to the kaffir humour thread....
Seriously...we can use a cluster munition (bomb in case you dont understand)...to do the same job...a 100 times cheaper...and the Cluster Munition can be flown in by the Jag or Mig-27 in a truly high speed lo alt dash. Please read some archives and you will understand why lo alt is preferred to high alt...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 14:47

good going nikhil.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Dec 2008 15:10

somnath: A prominent example of a dedicated ATGM carrier is the FV 102 Striker of the British Army. It carries the Swingfire ATGM ( 5 ready to fire and 5 reloads). It is part of the equipment profile of the Formation Reconnaisance Regiments of the British Army ( there are 5 such regiments as of today).

In our case, the NAMICA will most likley go to the Recce & Support (R&S) battalions of the Mechanized Infantry. Also, it might be a good addition to divisions (something like a composite Sqn of portable/Jeep mpunted ATGM launchers and NAMICA) which are likley to face the brunt of PA Strike elements

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Dec 2008 15:24

Thanks Rohit - thats new info! Are these deployed in operational theatres by the British Army?

But Recce and Surveillance would be a fairly niche role - wouldnt merit a very lrge batch of missiles/carriers. And dont think IA would evolve a replacement "doctrine" for Namica to replace jeep mouted ATGMs - the logistics chain for a traked vehicle would kill it on economic terms. So te Helina version has to come quickly!

Also, how many ATGMs would we use? There is Milan, Konkur, Fagots - then the Kornet Es and also the "would be(!)" Lahat..and now the Nag as well...not to count the Shipons and Carl Gustavs...the ATGM arsenal looks more and more like our air force fleet!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Dec 2008 15:43

@Somnath, a small correction, the FV 102 is in use. There is another version FV 438 that has been withdrawn. Like I said before, these are part of Formation Recce Regimets of the BA. These regimets are part of a senior mechanized formations either a Bde or Division. The allocation is three reconnaissance squadrons, each with three reconnaissance troops of four Scimitars and a guided weapons troop of four Strikers

The R&S battalions of the Mech. Infantry perform such a niche role and hence, NAMICA is custom made for them.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 27 Dec 2008 16:45

I had a question about Nag. So far, I have seen Nag work only on stationary objects, even this test was on stationary object. Is the effectiveness of Nag tested on moving object? (a remotely driven vehicle)

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Dec 2008 16:55

vasu_ray wrote:if we were to load about 200+ of Nags on a transport like IL-76 which does a high speed high altitude dash towards a paki armored column and releases them at a distance away such that the free fall flight path of these missiles takes them in the 6km bubble around the column, they deploy chutes until target acquisition and zoom in releasing the chutes

one could have either central control for target selection from another aircraft(s) possibly so as not to hit the same target

or have swarm intelligence where each neighborhood nag makes a decision and a split second after it acquires its target and dives, another one makes a target acquisition decision and dives and in under a few minutes all would have cleaned a armored column.

if you think about it, the changes to the existing Nag system will be minimal

The idea of this concept was played around by the Poms and the Yanks under the FOAS (Future Offensive Air System) under which a plane the size of a C-17 was loaded with ALCMs and given their substantial stand off range these would be launched at a good stand off range. Ofcourse these were strategic missiles and not tactical ones like the NAG otherwise the IL 76 is just a lumbering target for any paki with a 0.50 cal as Mr Nikhil mentioned.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Dec 2008 17:04

But the ATGM story looks more and more like a lot of DRDO projects - a system for which there is no defined GSQR, and the services are forced to "find" a doctrine for the system rather than the other way round...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 17:50

the NAMICA might well represent the future direction of tanks if it is up armoured a bit and IA is flexible anough to absorb it.

I remember an US army/other govt inst. report that picked up the NAMICA as the first of a type of vehicle on the modern battlefield.
NAMICA as it exists now is a perfect candidate for air deployable and rapid reaction forces. with some added protection (it would still be light enough to be deployed by IL-76) and add-ons (like an external 12.7mm gun controlled from inside the crew compartment) NAMICA is best suited to be the light tank that IA is looking for to serve in its high altitude formations or even an air-mobile armoured formation.