Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 17 Sep 2009 04:52

Arun_S wrote:You sound callous and pathetic with that claim, that soldiers will die anyway whether DRDO delivers or not, or delivers in committed time or not .
Looks like day will never come when we start caring for lives of Indian citizens and soldiers, and people holding your viewpoint will not send their kids join Indian military; yet enjoy the cream while it last on other people's sweat and blood. Coming from a family whose parents and siblings were/are in Military I can't nurture such thoughts.

You are reading me out of context. I didn't glorify deaths of soldiers. Only Barkha dutt is good in it.

Where do I talk of USA/Russia?
I am simply talking about India; and DRDO to lift their own weight and deliver what THEY promise and plan to deliver!

QSR are made after looking at foreign equipment specifications. So, if armed forces wants that world-class quality, then be prepared to pay proportionate to Indian scientists. Author should highlight this reality but I guess that makes his anti-DRDO campaign weaker so he won't mention these facts.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 17 Sep 2009 04:54

Arun_S wrote:Bottom line is: Is the author factual?
Some delinquents respond to loving suggestion, others to criticism, and yet other to chastisement. An author may choose any of the methods, as long as they are factual.

He is not factual. He is half-factual.

He is omitting facts which make his silly arguments weaker.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 15:15

vishwakarmaa wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Bottom line is: Is the author factual?
Some delinquents respond to loving suggestion, others to criticism, and yet other to chastisement. An author may choose any of the methods, as long as they are factual.
He is not factual. He is half-factual.

He is omitting facts which make his silly arguments weaker.

Avoid this Vishwakarma Jee, and take Arun_s's suggestion, please hear for yourself what Gen Ved Prakash Malik has to say about DRDO etc.

If you see factual inaccuracies point it out, but cribbing that a article in negative in tone is shooting the messenger. In the Nuclear discussions etc those who could not argue against the points raised labelled the thread as

thread, and or called other people names such as EBs.

Lets stay away from that route.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Sep 2009 15:30

sanku ji, with all due respect to Gen Malik, his arguments don't hold up well to scrutiny either.
and let's not forget he didn't exactly cover himself in glory in his handling of kargil.
more of passing the buck than anything else.
coming to manoj joshi, he used to be a decent defence journalist for frontline of the chindu group back in early 90's. it's been close to 2 decades since then and in this time the sum total of his contributions has been ravings and rantings typical of TOI. not exactly a stellar record either.
point is, while we should focus on the info we should keep an eye out for the source too, especially when the information itself may be open to interpretations.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 15:53

Rahul M wrote:point is, while we should focus on the info we should keep an eye out for the source too, especially when the information itself may be open to interpretations.

Ok Rahul, the best thing is to avoid talking about the source and talk only of the point raised, unless of course the source itself needs to be dissected to understand the point, in which case we should be careful and explicit about that action so as not to construe other motives.

That is all I say.

Otherwise, discussion is more like "he is negative, no he is not he is a cynic, no he is a realist, no he is an idiot"

hardly sheds light on the actual issues being discussed.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Sep 2009 16:06

Where was Manajo joshi before? why not write this 4 yrs ago or 5 yrs ago?

And that goes for others too - I may have missed it but I did not see any criticisms from any BR members before the whole nuclear shindig.

Things have a lot more credibility if they were said earlier when the concerned folks were in office

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 16:29

Surya wrote:Where was Manajo joshi before? why not write this 4 yrs ago or 5 yrs ago?

And that goes for others too - I may have missed it but I did not see any criticisms from any BR members before the whole nuclear shindig.

A lot of it is coming out now it seems, albeit late, it does not change the facts, what is, is. Criticism or no criticism (and note pointing to what is != criticism)

Why are skeletons coming from the cupboard now is a interesting question -- probably those are the salvos in a intra GoI war.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Sep 2009 18:03

Sanku

True-

but still one has to wonder.

And its not just the manoj joshis of the world - we on BR too.

How many people here criticised the Prithvis during Kalam;s heydey? I did not see any BR member have a sustained criticism on how crappy ti was. There was a lot of concern of the liquid fuelling but a lot of people defended it by using training yada yada as a workaround -

To extend it further Here is the BR page on prithvi

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html

If this collates all the known info - it has none of the criticism which is being mounted now.

So bottom line - No one raised any major issue at that point

I know I did not and the way I will take this news is to be more searching of anything from now on.

So be it Brahmos, Agni - whatever.

Yes ever since that nuclear deal all sort of rifts are coming up and people are starting to look for every skeleton to pull out

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 17 Sep 2009 18:40

IMHO, unless we look back & analyse our mistakes, we will repeat it & we wont fix the underlying the problems. Also, we will have a false sense of security, if we believe everything is fine with our missiles if it is not actually so. So looking back & highlighting mistakes per se is not wrong, but it has to be constructive. I think it is important when we look at mistakes that we dont get personal, or attack the individuals involved, it is one thing to highlight mistakes, it is another to question somebody's patriotism. On the other hand, we Indians, tend to take things personally, when someone highlights the mistakes. Somehow I think we lack the maturity to have a fact based discussion, & it quickly degenerates into personal accusations, or the questioning motives of the people highlighting the problems. My 2 cents.

Added later: IMHO, another problem to us Indians, is that we make people into either Gods or Villains, we cant seem to understand that everyone lies somewhere in between. We seem to want everything in black or white, & not accept any shade of grey

. Not sure why this is so, this seems a cultural trait ....

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 17 Sep 2009 18:49

A lot of it is coming out now it seems, albeit late, it does not change the facts, what is, is. Criticism or no criticism (and note pointing to what is != criticism)

Why are skeletons coming from the cupboard now is a interesting question -- probably those are the salvos in a intra GoI war.

Why it is coming now or why not earlier is a secondary? The point now is the Desh seems to be now Ram Bharose.Well even Ram does not help those who do not help themselves

Ok that is my bit of

for today

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Sep 2009 19:23

Manoj Joshi - Ah! how can one forget his reporting during N-deal. When DAE scientists objected and wanted a say in the N-deal in the beginning, he remarked in an interview what role the scientists have to veto the inclusion of FBR in the N-deal.

Another opportunistic !

One more thing, did anyone remember his reporting on DRDO followed by Aroor's DRDO series in express ? Its a gem and should be preserved for posterity

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Sep 2009 22:28

One more thing, did anyone remember his reporting on DRDO followed by Aroor's DRDO series in express ?

precisely ! also, anyone who followed his articles in the 90's wouldn't forget his scathing attack on IAF for daring to ask for AJTs !

not one whose words should be taken at face value.

Ok Rahul, the best thing is to avoid talking about the source and talk only of the point raised, unless of course the source itself needs to be dissected to understand the point, in which case we should be careful and explicit about that action so as not to construe other motives.

That is all I say. {^^^ that's all I'm saying as well !}

Otherwise, discussion is more like "he is negative, no he is not he is a cynic, no he is a realist, no he is an idiot" hardly sheds light on the actual issues being discussed.
{of course if a person is a certified idiot (e.g bidwai) it says something about one who is ready to follow his words blindly. cuts both ways ! better not do that for the peace of mind of all ! }

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Sep 2009 01:02

Rahul M wrote:of course if a person is a certified idiot (e.g bidwai) it says something about one who is ready to follow his words blindly. cuts both ways ! better not do that for the peace of mind of all !

I was sort of hoping that Shri Bidwai is in the august company of 1. If not I am willing to understand why the companionship is being expanded. In case people should do that explicitly by pointing to the past track record.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Sep 2009 01:14

mea culpa sanku ji, nobody deserves to be classed with purefool with a handfool of honourable exceptions like a roy and bidwai NG, aakar patel ?
I was simply taking some poetic license of exaggeration to make a point.

but that doesn't mean manoj joshi isn't in the exalted company of worthies like vishal thapar and co. in fact they operate under his watch since he is an editor of some kind at TOI ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Sep 2009 01:40

Rahul M wrote:mea culpa sanku ji, nobody deserves to be classed with purefool with a handfool of honourable exceptions like a roy and bidwai NG, aakar patel ?
I was simply taking some poetic license of exaggeration to make a point.

but that doesn't mean manoj joshi isn't in the exalted company of worthies like vishal thapar and co. in fact they operate under his watch since he is an editor of some kind at TOI ?

Yes certainly, they are, and we should then separate the wheat from chaff from their reports and that is all I guess we are both saying.

Truce shall we?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Sep 2009 06:20

ah, but I'm always at truce !

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2009 02:25

X-posted....

Gerard wrote:Iran and IAEA re-enter missile row
"We want them to explain to us that the design studies are not for nuclear weapons," said the official. "We're saying, you say you've done re-entry vehicle re-engineering [on Shahab-3], so show us some documentation."

Buried in this article are details of the new Iranain Re-entry vehicle!

According to a detailed analysis by the Armed Combat Information Group (ACIG), the upgraded version of the Shahab-3 has an improved guidance system and warhead, as well as completely new re-entry vehicle with a different guidance system based on rocket-nozzle steering rather than a spin-stabilized re-entry vehicle.

The new re-entry vehicle is smaller than the previous version, according to the former head of Israel's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. That gives the improved version greater precision.

But the most significant feature of the new variant, according to the ACIG analysis, is the capability for changing trajectory repeatedly during re-entry and in the missile's terminal phase. That capability allows the Shahab-3 to evade the radar systems associated with Israel's Arrow 2 missile.

Something it think about.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2009 10:09

This is like Agni-3 RV ?

The manouvering RV of Iran , is well Thanks to Russia , If US can provide ABM to Israel , then Russia counters that and provides manouvering RV to Iran.

I think there goes Arrow-3 biting the dust

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 10:20

Yeah isnt that remarkable. And they dont even have an IGMP

India has one and its the most documented one.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 25 Sep 2009 17:10

Raduga Kh-15 vs Brahmos PJ-10 (Air Launch) comparision

Weight = 1200kg vs 2500kg
Range = 300 kms vs 290 kms
Speed = Mach 5 vs Mach 2.8
warhead = 150kg vs 300 kg

Question to Gurus (Arun_S, en cube ityaadi) : why does the PJ-10 weigh almost twice the Kh-10 for the same range, while travelling at almost half the speed? Is it only due to warhead weight difference? Or is it possible that the actual range much more than advertised - maybe by removing a bug from the software that limits range to 290, inserted by Russia for MTCR obligations with full Indian knowledge?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Sep 2009 17:18

well written (flexible) sw picks up init parameters from binary or even text files. if binary, one needs a small pgm to read that file and replace the value at certain word offets like "290" with "500". if text file, a 'code monkey' can use vi to edit and replace it more easily

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Sep 2009 18:16

Kh-15 was a powered ballistic missile. It had a mostly ballistic trajectory with limited flight control. It climbed and dived.
BrahMos & recent missiles have extremely high degree of flight control and ability to perform complex maneuvers.
Mach 5 was obtained when a semi ballistic profile was followed. BrahMos has uniform speed control.
Accuracy of Kh-15/similar US SRAM in CEP was around ~500 meters. BrahMos is pinpoint.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 18:35

The Kh-15 was suppose to defeat the CBG with numbers and sheer speed , they were accurate to the extent that they could hit the ship , with the same accuracy as any anti-ship missile would do,but Brahmos is in a different league.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 25 Sep 2009 19:01

MRSAM and its active seeker range comparison

MRSAM has diameter of 226mm
R77 has diameter of 200mm
DERBY missile has diameter of 160mm
AMRAAM has diameter of 180mm

so if 200mm diameter 9B-1103M active seeker for R77 missile has 20-25 km range against 5^sq
and if 150 mm diameter 9B-1103M active seeker has detection range of 13 km against 5^sq

so i site derby missile seeker to have similar detection range compared to 150 mm diameter 9B-1103M active seeker range.

i site AMRAAM missile seeker to have less than 20km detection range against 5^sq,and AMRAAM seeker is used on very long range SM-6 in conjunction with inertial guidance system.

so i site same Derby missile seeker will be used in MRSAM as active missile seeker because if derby missile has range of 50km and if active seeker works well so seeker would pose no difficulty to be used for 70km MRSAM .

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Sep 2009 19:34

you're right Austin, I was referring to the nuclear tipped warhead version that used inertial guidance, that was the primary role of the missile that armed bombers.

The anti ship version did have a radar, but was incapable of complex maneuvers possible in BrahMos and present generation.

Effective against a steady sailing CBG in formaton, but not against the fast nimble maneuvering single ships operating alone these days.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Sep 2009 19:49

BTW my datapoints and understanding comes from reading janes two decades ago, so you may definitely add/correct what i've mentioned.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 20:41

tsarkar wrote:you're right Austin, I was referring to the nuclear tipped warhead version that used inertial guidance, that was the primary role of the missile that armed bombers.

The anti ship version did have a radar, but was incapable of complex maneuvers possible in BrahMos and present generation.

Yes that is right they are suppose to have Top Attack Capability and use sheer speed/numbers to out do any defence a CBG would have had then , I saw a similar profile diagram for the anti-ship Kh-31 missile , though these missile would follow a pure cruise trajectory , but for attack they would rise and dive at the target , these were not the terminal complex manouvering types

Effective against a steady sailing CBG in formaton, but not against the fast nimble maneuvering single ships operating alone these days.

My understanding is any antiship missile ( subsonic/supersonic ) can out maneuver any ship , as long as the ARH for these missile do not loose the target or get jammed/decoyed in return.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Sep 2009 21:08

Older missiles didnt get datalink updates, hence fast moving ships might be out of initial inertial guidance coordinates and there may be nothing in the ARH seeker FoV.

Brahmos AFAIK DOESNT have datalink, but seeker AFAIK uses two modes, one wide angle scan 20 nm from the target and it does a "S" for the seeker to scan a larger area. After updating it shuts down and activates at closer range. These seekers have better signal processing & range/sensetivity than older ones. Infact the seeker is so good that with an algorithm, they can identify land targets!

The Kh-15 has to hope to find its target in its FoV while descending.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 21:49

Emm ok thats one nice point tsarkar.

Looking at the data ,what now strikes me is the range 300 km is something new for Kh-15, from memory these missile were ~ mach 5 and 150 km .

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 23:33

aditp wrote:Raduga Kh-15 vs Brahmos PJ-10 (Air Launch) comparision

Weight = 1200kg vs 2500kg
Range = 300 kms vs 290 kms
Speed = Mach 5 vs Mach 2.8
warhead = 150kg vs 300 kg

Question to Gurus (Arun_S, en cube ityaadi) : why does the PJ-10 weigh almost twice the Kh-10 for the same range, while travelling at almost half the speed? Is it only due to warhead weight difference? Or is it possible that the actual range much more than advertised - maybe by removing a bug from the software that limits range to 290, inserted by Russia for MTCR obligations with full Indian knowledge?

Per my understanding BrahMos range is artificially curtailed in software to respect MTCR, however its stated range includes wayward drunkard walking path that is not easy to predict compared to to a straight line shoot.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2009 16:10

tsarkar wrote:Older missiles didnt get datalink updates, hence fast moving ships might be out of initial inertial guidance coordinates and there may be nothing in the ARH seeker FoV.

Brahmos AFAIK DOESNT have datalink, but seeker AFAIK uses two modes, one wide angle scan 20 nm from the target and it does a "S" for the seeker to scan a larger area. After updating it shuts down and activates at closer range. These seekers have better signal processing & range/sensetivity than older ones. Infact the seeker is so good that with an algorithm, they can identify land targets!

The Kh-15 has to hope to find its target in its FoV while descending.

My thoughts here and correct me if i am wrong

I think the higher the speed of the missile , the lower is its ability to perform complex manouvering because the stress the missile will go through at such high speed specially at low altitude.

So a ~ Mach 2.8 missile can sizzle a lot compared to a ~ M 5 missile , the pop up and dive way to attack a target would also present the largest RCS of the target (ship ) for the missile and a fail safe method not to miss it.

The hypersonic Brahmos-2 ( ~ M 5 - 7 ) missile will face the same issue and will resort to less of manouvering and more of sheer speed and pop and dive tactics combined with low RF signature for penetration.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2009 16:19

from my limited knowledge of this subject, any hi-speed air breathing engine will be starved of air and hence O2 if it goes into any violent maneuvers beyond some AoA, effectively ruling out anything but gradual maneuvers albeit at high speed. this problem doesn't arise for missiles that don't use air breathing engines.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 26 Sep 2009 16:57

Last year, there were reports of some laser guided missiles SUDARSHAN being developed. Any update?

-Nitin

John · Post by **John** » 26 Sep 2009 21:29

You have to keep in mind Yakhont was never designed for air launch apart from mock up displayed couple years ago to promote the Flanker it was never tested or designed for that purpose. So Brahmos corp is threading new ground here, it does negate one of its main advantages which is its canister at the manufacturing facility to keep maintenance costs low.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Sep 2009 11:20

John wrote:You have to keep in mind Yakhont was never designed for air launch apart from mock up displayed couple years ago to promote the Flanker it was never tested or designed for that purpose. So Brahmos corp is threading new ground here, it does negate one of its main advantages which is its canister at the manufacturing facility to keep maintenance costs low.

Not really , Yakhont was always designed as a Universal Missile ( Sea/Ground/Air ) , and the Soviet/Russia , did a lot of work on it including live firing from missile boats and a Echo class was designated to carry 24 missile on inclined launchers.

But an airlaunched variant will now be tested as the need and requirement has come up.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Sep 2009 11:30

ramana wrote:Yeah isnt that remarkable. And they dont even have an IGMP

India has one and its the most documented one.

Ramana , indeed this is quite remarkable achievement under pressure and watch from US/Israel agencies.

Check out the RV of Shahab-3B ( link , it has some similarities with A-3 RV.

Since they have designed this special optimised RV , it makes me believe they do have a design of a fission device to fit into this ?

Check this ACIG write up on Shahab link

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 27 Sep 2009 14:40

Brahmos has range of 290km in which 250 km is hi and 40 km lo + s Maneuver or it has range of 120km lo-lo, which means around 370km hi-hi. There was some vague talk of 25% improvement (lost the link) so around 460km hi hi range. Am assuming that missile comes down in "powered" mode & does an S maneuver but if it comes down in un-powered mode having expended its fuel at the highest point then the range can be anything from 600-1000km in hi-hi mode.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Sep 2009 15:08

Unpowered/coasting regime of flight during terminal phase for a Ashm/Lacm like Brahmos with a meager 300kg payload makes little sense ;unless we are talking about a separating final stage (akin to ballistic missiles) such a missile will lack desired accuracy.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Sep 2009 17:51

Austin wrote:
John wrote:You have to keep in mind Yakhont was never designed for air launch apart from mock up displayed couple years ago to promote the Flanker it was never tested or designed for that purpose. So Brahmos corp is threading new ground here, it does negate one of its main advantages which is its canister at the manufacturing facility to keep maintenance costs low.
Not really , Yakhont was always designed as a Universal Missile ( Sea/Ground/Air ) , and the Soviet/Russia , did a lot of work on it including live firing from missile boats and a Echo class was designated to carry 24 missile on inclined launchers.

But an airlaunched variant will now be tested as the need and requirement has come up.

I did say it is not Universal, it designed from a launch from submarine, ship and land based silos/launcher not from an air launched platform. Considering only Su-30s at present can carry them at present and they would require structural modifications it is doubtful whether IAF would procure them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Sep 2009 23:03

John wrote:I did say it is not Universal, it designed from a launch from submarine, ship and land based silos/launcher not from an air launched platform. Considering only Su-30s at present can carry them at present and they would require structural modifications it is doubtful whether IAF would procure them.

Well It is a universal missile from ground up , dimension wise there is no difference between Yakhont and Brahmos except for the software and guidance.

The IAF is believed to have sent 1 or 2 aircraft to Russia to convert MKI to test air launched variant , they are definitely keen on it , except they will be limited to MKI , IL-38 and Tu-142 in IAF/IN inventory.