Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 07 Nov 2009 21:44

The concept of orbital velocity/escape velocity does not apply to self propelled bodies. They are more important to objects being hurled from the surface of the earth without any propulsive source to sustain their journey hence forth. A 'propelled' satellite/body can orbit the earth at whatever velocity it wants.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 07 Nov 2009 21:51

Rahul M wrote: do you think missiles need to achieve the theoretical orbital velocity to do that ?

Actually, most ballistic missiles can serve as ASAT weapons (Eg SM3 etc etc)as their trajectory takes them to a very high flight ceiling. For ballistic missiles their flight ceiling is between 200 to 1500 km. They do not reach orbital velocity but their apogee will be very high. For example ICBMs reach a speed of around 7 km/s at apogee but can be used as ASAT weapons.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Nov 2009 21:59

I think this needs to added to my post.

added later :
oops, I wrote orbital when I meant escape ! sorry for the confusion !

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Nov 2009 10:38

Ankit Desai wrote:Army warms up to Akash missile

The IAF’s order last year for two Akash squadrons — dismissed by sceptics as a face-saving burial for the Akash programme — has just been doubled with a fresh IAF order for 16 more launchers that will be stationed in northeast India. And now, Business Standard has accessed even better news for the Akash programme: the Indian Army is considering ordering several Akash squadrons for its ground forces.
Ankit

Looks like IAF has ordered another Akash Group (4 batteries equivalent each with 4 launchers) or 2 Squadrons. The first order was for the same number.

http://www.akashsam.com/operational.htm

The Akash Group is extremely flexible in employment and deployment. It is best employed as a Group. However, Batteries can be employed on independent tasks if required. This is called the Autonomous Mode.

The four Batteries can be deployed in various geometric formations, as suited to the vulnerable area being protected and the extent desired to be sanitized from enemy air threat.

Similarly, the Battery can deploy its launchers in a way as to be optimal for target engagement as the threat is perceived ab-initio or as it evolves during combat. Mobility enables quick redeployment and the sensors can be so positioned as to achieve the optimum kill zone.

Deployment patterns and area defended:
* 62km x 62km - Box configuration
* 98km x 44km - Linear array configuration
* 5000 square km - Trapezoidal configuration

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 08 Nov 2009 10:47

ashkrishna wrote:The concept of orbital velocity/escape velocity does not apply to self propelled bodies. They are more important to objects being hurled from the surface of the earth without any propulsive source to sustain their journey hence forth. A 'propelled' satellite/body can orbit the earth at whatever velocity it wants.

I have read of efforts to launch satellites using high power cannons. These satellites would need the escape velocity to egress out of atmosphere.

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 08 Nov 2009 10:51

Yogi_G wrote:
I have read of efforts to launch satellites using high power cannons. These satellites would need the escape velocity to egress out of atmosphere.

Theoretically possible. Escape velocity comes into play here.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 08 Nov 2009 10:52

Noticed this image in the radar page of the akash site link that srai had provided.

They have used the image of a SR-71

. Wonder why.

I am used to seeing the thumbnail image of the MKI in most of the air force material. Even the Minsk Square matters ends each of its article with the MKI image. Ok, OT, outta here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2009 12:19

Yogi_G wrote:Noticed this image in the radar page of the akash site link that srai had provided.

They have used the image of a SR-71 . Wonder why.

The same reason that drug companies in India when advertising their brand of drug use photos of F-16s as "symbols of power" like their powerful brand of drug.. Indians by and large are ignorant enough to be unable to distinguish between one aircraft and another - even when they are employed by BEL. And because of the "Discovery channel factor" they will name the F-16 as the world's best fighter. Playing golf last week with two perfectly well educated and wealthy young people - I saw a yellow painted Jag take of. Later one of the people I was playing with remarked how he enjoyed the F-18 take off. This is Yamerika's soft power.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Nov 2009 12:29

Yogi_G wrote:
ashkrishna wrote:The concept of orbital velocity/escape velocity does not apply to self propelled bodies. They are more important to objects being hurled from the surface of the earth without any propulsive source to sustain their journey hence forth. A 'propelled' satellite/body can orbit the earth at whatever velocity it wants.
I have read of efforts to launch satellites using high power cannons. These satellites would need the escape velocity to egress out of atmosphere.

you mean gerald bull's pet project. nothing much came out of it if I remember.
the research was applied to other projects.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 08 Nov 2009 13:41

gun launched satellite systems were Gerald Bull's dream.

the HARP project did manage to reach outer space as defined by the pentagon that is an altitude of over 100 km. his martletl projectiles attained 180km.

Bull is the one of the main reasons why S. Africa is a leader in artillery systems today. The GC-45 was his baby. his subsequent involvement with China not only saw them getting howitzer tech but most likely helped them build a long range super cannon of their own .
In iraq, the second supergun that was planned under project babylon may have fulfilled Bull's long cherished dream. but then that never got built anyway

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 12 Nov 2009 12:34

Fresh ABM tests soon

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_fr ... on_1310453

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 12 Nov 2009 12:34

According to Wiki, Nag has already been bought by Tanzania, Botswana and Morocco.

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

Is it correct ?? If true, this is really good sign. I mean even IA has not started its induction yet & it has already been exported.

Thanks

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 12 Nov 2009 12:55

Sunny i am 99 % sure that we have not exported yet nag atgm , wiki might be wrong on this

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 12 Nov 2009 17:20

karan_mc wrote:Sunny i am 99 % sure that we have not exported yet nag atgm , wiki might be wrong on this

You may be right Karan. But Wiki does have a source for this. Here it goes:-

An Indian official said a country in the Middle East had shown keen interest in India’s anti-tank guided missiles, which are competitively priced and had been bought by Tanzania, Botswana and Morocco.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Nov 2009 17:26

can't be the nag. since nag is not a MANPATGM the firing platform would have to be compatible.

the likely answer is milan.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 12 Nov 2009 17:53

[quote="Asit P"][quote="karan_mc"]Sunny i am 99 % sure that we have not exported yet nag atgm , wiki might be wrong on this[/quote]

You may be right Karan. But Wiki does have a source for this.
[/quote]
article dated - March 24, 2003
that should give a clue

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 Nov 2009 06:45

India & Israel’s Barak SAM Development Project(s)

The land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) system includes several components. The battle management, command, control, communication and intelligence center (BMC4I) is produced by the MBT Division of IAI’s Missiles, Systems, and Space Group; it offers both stand alone operation for a single fire unit, and joint task force coordination (JTC). RAFAEL supplies the Barak 8 interceptor missile, which remains vertically launched. IAI ELTA Systems Ltd. supplies the Land-Based Multi-Function Surveillance, Track & Guidance Radar (LB-MF-STAR), a rotating S-band digital Active Electronic Steering Array (AESA) Radar System that can deliver an accurate, high quality arena situation picture, and extract low radar cross section targets like stealthy cruise missiles, even in the toughest environmental conditions. The naval MF-STAR is expected to be part of Israel’s next-generation missile frigates.

The follow-on Barak-8 project involves a land-based system, intended to replace old Russian systems. The DRDO Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be the ‘prime developer’ for the MR-SAM project, which will reportedly have a Rs 2,300 crore (INR 23 billion, $450 million) indigenous component within an estimated Rs 10,000 crore (INR 100 billion, about $1.93 billion) total. The 4-5 year project aims to provide India’s military with 9 advanced air defense squadrons, each with 2 MR-SAM firing units. Each unit, in turn, would consist of a command and control center, an acquisition radar, a guidance radar, and 3 launchers with eight missiles each. The total would therefore be 10 C2 centers, 18 acquisition radars, 18 guidance radars, and 54 launchers, armed with 432 ready-to-fire missiles.

India Defence reports that IAI and its Israeli partners have agreed to transfer all relevant technologies and manufacturing capabilities to India. Indian sources estimate a 4-year, $300 million System Design & Development phase to develop unique system elements, and produce an initial tranche of the land-based missiles.

jai · Post by **jai** » 13 Nov 2009 12:29

Army warms up to Akash missile

Quote:
The IAF’s order last year for two Akash squadrons — dismissed by sceptics as a face-saving burial for the Akash programme — has just been doubled with a fresh IAF order for 16 more launchers that will be stationed in northeast India. And now, Business Standard has accessed even better news for the Akash programme: the Indian Army is considering ordering several Akash squadrons for its ground forces.

Finally ! This is good news definitely....but both IAF and Army need to order good numbers......50 squads each I guess.....given the delays in AD missiles/Barak....they should actually order a good number of S400 systems as well....all of these would be needed and more if we ever end up having a fight with the dragon....to deal with the large numbers of aircraft and missles the dragon will let loose on us.....numbers will matter more than the highest tech right now......

Maybe we should export Akash ......offer it to the Russians

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 13 Nov 2009 12:40

This is Yamerika's soft power.

That is India's clue less educated masses often termed "elite". Next Time the same elite might says he seen CLUB in the hands of IAF officers who can perform and deliver. While referring Klub.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 13 Nov 2009 13:00

Because if you cant bring down SR71 at least you can Down (load) one from MS graphics.

Seriously Akash is supposed to be mach 2.5 to 3 only SR7 is supposed to be in that speed range (even higher 7 no)

What materials was it constructed with? Actually, it was the first true Stealth aircraft. It is composed of Titanium and Composite (plastic) materials. The landing gear is the largest piece of titanium ever forged in the world. The United States did not have enough Titanium to build the fleet and ironically, we bought the needed Titanium from Russia.

Hello BARC hint hint

Was the SR-71 designed by a computer? No, every aspect of the aircraft was designed with a Slide Rule!

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 13 Nov 2009 14:07

Kudos to the mod who did magic on the propaganda piece

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 13 Nov 2009 18:57

An observation: In July, there were reports of Agni III to be tested in the near future. That test did not happen. Now, in november, an Agni II test has not materialized after reports that it would be done. Is our strategic missile program being capped ? Testing strategic ballistic missiles regularly is more important than testing some ABM's and other things that have doubtful utility.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Nov 2009 19:00

Some info on Klub ( via AirForces Monthly )

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Nov 2009 23:41

jai wrote:
Army warms up to Akash missile

Quote:
The IAF’s order last year for two Akash squadrons — dismissed by sceptics as a face-saving burial for the Akash programme — has just been doubled with a fresh IAF order for 16 more launchers that will be stationed in northeast India. And now, Business Standard has accessed even better news for the Akash programme: the Indian Army is considering ordering several Akash squadrons for its ground forces.
Finally ! This is good news definitely....but both IAF and Army need to order good numbers......50 squads each I guess.....given the delays in AD missiles/Barak.......

Maybe we should export Akash ......offer it to the Russians

Based on news reports, the IAF had a requirement for around 8 squadrons (4 Akash Groups) of Akash SAMs. Only 4 squadrons (2 Akash Groups/8 batteries) have been ordered so far. With the reports of the IA interested in buying Akash SAMs, it would likely mean another 3 Akash Groups (one for each of its strike corps). So this brings the total to around 5 to 7 Akash Groups.

Since the Akash SAM is based on the SA-6 Kvadrat concept, we can use that to infer on certain numbers. Let's look at how many missiles will be produced for the 5-7 Akash Groups:

48 missiles - each battery Akash missile warstock (based on SA-6 battery deployments)
20-28 batteries - four batteries per Akash Group (5-7 ordered/planned)
-------------------
Total missiles: 960 - 1,344 Akash missiles

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Nov 2009 02:00

srai:

1 Akash group = 2 squadrons = 4 batteries = 16 launchers = 48 missiles (96 including spares)

So, for a total of 7 groups, the max number of missiles = 336 (672 including spares).

Your count is twice mine. Are you stating that for each launcher, there are 9 spare missiles in addition to the 3 ready-to-fire ones?

P.S. anyway, we are in speculative territory because the IA order numbers are unknown (unless you have links to the reports where the IA numbers are specified).

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Nov 2009 04:23

Prem Kumar wrote:srai:

1 Akash group = 2 squadrons = 4 batteries = 16 launchers = 48 missiles (96 including spares)

So, for a total of 7 groups, the max number of missiles = 336 (672 including spares).

Your count is twice mine. Are you stating that for each launcher, there are 9 spare missiles in addition to the 3 ready-to-fire ones?

...

Each battery for SA-6 has 48 missiles (Missile Warstock Deployed) according to this article on 2K12 Battery Components. That comes to about 4 loads per launcher. So a Group with 4 batteries will have 192 (4 x 48) missiles. So this is where I was speculating on the numbers for Akash since it is based on the SA-6 concept.

In your estimates you are only including 1 set on launcher plus 2 sets as spares. Did you have a source for that somewhere?

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Nov 2009 14:20

Python and Derby are both air-to-air missiles. They are effectively being used as short-medium range SAMs in SPYDER.
In the similar manner what if we try to use Akash as a long range(heavy) AAM. It weighs around 700kg and should not be of such a problem for heavier type aircraft.
Though not in current configuration, a little tweaking like reducing weight(booster?), improvising/replacing sensors may do the trick.
I hope this isn't as silly as it sounds. Alas...we could turn prithvi into a BMD missile.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Nov 2009 16:01

koti wrote:Python and Derby are both air-to-air missiles. They are effectively being used as short-medium range SAMs in SPYDER.
In the similar manner what if we try to use Akash as a long range(heavy) AAM. It weighs around 700kg and should not be of such a problem for heavier type aircraft.
Though not in current configuration, a little tweaking like reducing weight(booster?), improvising/replacing sensors may do the trick.
I hope this isn't as silly as it sounds. Alas...we could turn prithvi into a BMD missile.

One of the chief problems for Akash is that it is based on a vintage 1960/70 SA-6 missile design. Currently, it is limited to 15g and M2.8 - both of which are far below the capability necessary for effectively handling modern threats. I would assume the next design iteration will try to address these two major shortcomings (maneuverability and speed) in the current Akash version. IMO, if possible, the target should be 25g and M4.0, which are more in line with current gen missiles.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Nov 2009 23:19

srai wrote: One of the chief problems for Akash is that it is based on a vintage 1960/70 SA-6 missile design. Currently, it is limited to 15g and M2.8 - both of which are far below the capability necessary for effectively handling modern threats. I would assume the next design iteration will try to address these two major shortcomings (maneuverability and speed) in the current Akash version. IMO, if possible, the target should be 25g and M4.0, which are more in line with current gen missiles.

per my understanding the speed quoted for the rocket-powered missiles (4 mach, say), which is the standard you are comparing with, is the highest achieved speed and not the average speed, which is much lower since powered flight is a smaller part of total flight-time.
the akash however, being powered throughout would have an average speed much closer to the highest achieved speed.
the case is similar for the G requirement. a rocket-powered missile is coasting during its engagement phase and has to have very high g limits in order to compensate for the fact that one shot is all it gets, if it misses once, the loss of energy can't be made up.
this does not apply to the akash which can use its still burning engine to literally 'chase down' a target.

I think these two parameters are well thought out trade-offs by the designers rather than shortcomings. (for example there are limits on AOA and hence G, beyond which the ramjet is starved of oxygen. most high g maneuvers will also be high AOA ones)

there's a good discussion on this at keypubs :
start from this post.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=140

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Nov 2009 06:05

wrt the Akash missile system,

More importantly the number of missiles ready to fire in a battery and group.

Therefore:
1 Akash battery = 12 missiles ready to fire.
1 Akash Group = 48 missiles ready to fire.

The numbers quoted, 5 - 7 groups are inadequate to cover a 200+ cruise missile salvo. More groups are needed to be able to handle that. The numbers might be ok to cover for a massed air attack, but clearly not a cruise missile salvo.

Who's responsibility is it to cover the borders of the nation?
The army is acquiring this to cover its battle groups, the airforce to cover major air bases and important installations. Is it possible to have a line of SAM's that can cover the airspace on the sensitive part of the borders and provide an additional layer (apart from a layer around major cities) to protect against a salvo?

John · Post by **John** » 15 Nov 2009 06:43

Rahul M wrote:per my understanding the speed quoted for the rocket-powered missiles (4 mach, say), which is the standard you are comparing with, is the highest achieved speed and not the average speed, which is much lower since powered flight is a smaller part of total flight-time.
the akash however, being powered throughout would have an average speed much closer to the highest achieved speed.
the case is similar for the G requirement. a rocket-powered missile is coasting during its engagement phase and has to have very high g limits in order to compensate for the fact that one shot is all it gets, if it misses once, the loss of energy can't be made up.
this does not apply to the akash which can use its still burning engine to literally 'chase down' a target.

Akash uses a solid propellant ramjet engine used in SA-6 as well unfortunately it limits its performance severely. The Russians dropped the ramjet engine for SA-11, I am surprised DRDO did not follow suite and replace Akash when it was in development with solid propellant rocket motor as well .

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2K12-Kvadrat.html

The aft fuselage contains the annular solid propellant first stage booster, with a launch mass of ~172 kg and a length of 1.7 metres, using VIK-2 propellant. The igniter initiates a burn along the central 5.4 cm dia. cavity. The engine has burn duration of about 3 to 6 seconds and accelerates the missile from 0 to ~ Mach 1.5. Once the booster has burned out, it becomes the combustion chamber / nozzle for the solid propellant rocket ramjet. Four symmetrically placed air inlets feed into this chamber. Frangible fibreglass covers are used to prevent air ingestion prior to sustainer ignition.

The centre fuselage contains the gas generator fuel charge for the solid propellant ramjet operation. The 9D16K sustainer solid gas generator charge comprising 67 kg of LK-6TM reducing propellant is ignited and the hot gas discharge vents into the combustion chamber, where it is mixed with air to burn and generate sustainer thrust. Burn duration is ~20 seconds, during which the missile accelerates to a peak velocity of ~2.8 Mach. Russian sources claim that the sustainer cannot be throttled and as a result this limits choices in missile trajectories.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Nov 2009 07:02

John wrote: Akash uses a solid propellant ramjet engine used in SA-6 as well unfortunately it limits its performance severely. The Russians dropped the ramjet engine for SA-11, I am surprised DRDO did not follow suite and replace Akash when it was in development with solid propellant rocket motor as well .

Could you explain what the limitations are and why the DRDO may have chosen an independent path rather than the lets keep on copying the Russians path. I mean the DRDO are usually called stupid (their usual reputation) or original (the ROTFL interpretation) - which category does this belong to?

John · Post by **John** » 15 Nov 2009 10:57

shiv wrote:
John wrote: Akash uses a solid propellant ramjet engine used in SA-6 as well unfortunately it limits its performance severely. The Russians dropped the ramjet engine for SA-11, I am surprised DRDO did not follow suite and replace Akash when it was in development with solid propellant rocket motor as well .
Could you explain what the limitations are and why the DRDO may have chosen an independent path rather than the lets keep on copying the Russians path. I mean the DRDO are usually called stupid (their usual reputation) or original (the ROTFL interpretation) - which category does this belong to?

Big advantage of the ramjet engine is that it can sustain the speed however it comes at the cost of lower top speed and ceiling. I believe DRDO stuck with what worked and focused on updating the guidance instead (command guidance vs SAR), which opens the door for longer ranged variant. However that did not prevent the project from running into delays and we all know what happened.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Nov 2009 11:33

John wrote: However that did not prevent the project from running into delays and we all know what happened.

May I ask what happened? The Akash has been written off so many times but the Army seems to be ordering them. Do you believe that they are going in for a faulty, outdated missile?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Nov 2009 11:49

Big advantage of the ramjet engine is that it can sustain the speed however it comes at the cost of lower top speed and ceiling.

higher topspeed itself does not give any advantage, given that this will be achieved much before intercept phase.

However that did not prevent the project from running into delays and we all know what happened.

that it cleared IAF trials with flying colours and looks to be a good success for the GMDP ?
successful trials at maharajpur were a big deal IMO.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Nov 2009 20:18

Rahul M wrote:higher topspeed itself does not give any advantage, given that this will be achieved much before intercept phase.

Well the speed and range limitation where the reasons ramjet was dropped for SA-11, DRDO itself planned 70 km solid propelled variant. If Akash-2 was deployed by now and perhaps even a naval replacement for Shtil.

shiv wrote:May I ask what happened? The Akash has been written off so many times but the Army seems to be ordering them. Do you believe that they are going in for a faulty, outdated missile?

Well the system is generation or so behind compared with Barak-8 (VLS, Active seeker, network centric capabilities etc). But considering SA-2/3, Hawk, SA-6 are still being upgraded and used by many countries, Akash is good substitute for them and it is cost effective. Rather than upgrading SA-6 it is more cost effective to replace them with Akash.

jai · Post by **jai** » 15 Nov 2009 21:10

Gagan

The numbers quoted, 5 - 7 groups are inadequate to cover a 200+ cruise missile salvo. More groups are needed to be able to handle that. The numbers might be ok to cover for a massed air attack, but clearly not a cruise missile salvo.

Who's responsibility is it to cover the borders of the nation?

The army is acquiring this to cover its battle groups, the airforce to cover major air bases and important installations. Is it possible to have a line of SAM's that can cover the airspace on the sensitive part of the borders and provide an additional layer (apart from a layer around major cities) to protect against a salvo?

Hi Gagan,

I think you have raised a very important question - " Who is responsible for defending India against incoming cruise missles" and " what differentiates the AD responsibilities of IA and IAF ?

AD possibly is our biggest weakness in defence right now.

I think time has come to create a separate and independent AD Force - which is given the responsibility of defending India against all aerial threats. Elements of this force could then serve with IA, IAF, and IN units/locations as per requirements.

This area needs a lot of importance and funding - if it stays within each service, it may not get enough of both.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Nov 2009 21:59

Well the system is generation or so behind compared with Barak-8 (VLS, Active seeker, network centric capabilities etc). But considering SA-2/3, Hawk, SA-6 are still being upgraded and used by many countries, Akash is good substitute for them and it is cost effective. Rather than upgrading SA-6 it is more cost effective to replace them with Akash.

if akash' ECCM features are as good as it gets, how exactly is it inferior to other SAMs ?
not to mention the fact of powered flight throughout its range.
we have to understand that active seeker is a means to an end, not an end in itself. and it is this fact that makes the akash affordable in numbers. lack of a canisterised version is the only criticism that I find valid.

lack of network centric capabilities ? did you read the stuff at the link I gave last page ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Nov 2009 22:10

I wish they would have smokeless propellant on the Akash. The launch booster and the RAMJET gives off a huge trail of smoke that'll clearly identify the launch site.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 15 Nov 2009 22:15

Gagan wrote:I wish they would have smokeless propellant on the Akash. The launch booster and the RAMJET gives off a huge trail of smoke that'll clearly identify the launch site.

IIRC Akash uses a solid booster stage before the ramjet. Solids are pretty smoky.