Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 00:59

Agreed Negi, that is why the question, can trishul missile be changed from beam riding to CLOS using the proven CLOS modules from akash and cheaply cover the short end of the AD spectrum? Won't that be quicker and more cost effective than developing something from scratch or using expensive spyder everywhere?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 01:11

but, for quick reaction.. we can't afford to allow a warning system to take action that attacking missile starts using evasion logic by way of guidance radar.

trishul could have possibly lost to decreased accuracy due to beam spreads and not an all weather solution. they could also think about retransmission homing hybrids for trishul.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 01:45

Quick is relative. Is Barak quick enough? Tunguska? Kastan?
All of them are command guided and in indian service.

We do not have a indegenous TVM module ready for use in Trishul so retransmission homming hybrid is another pie in the sky.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Nov 2009 01:58

Trishul was to serve as IN's point defense missile system which could even address sea skimmers.
That is why the missile employed a radar altimeter and at the same time went for a 3 beam riding technique i.e. to address the issue of sea clutter which plagues the vanilla CLOS (where FCR tracks and feeds coordinates to missile via data link). Remember we are talking about a programme when DSP was not robust enough .

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 02:22

Trishul was to be a tri service missile so the army and airforce version must also be present. All 3 were shelved when beam riding could not be mastered/perfected on time.
Now Akash is not being selected for IN but for IA and IAF. So is it not possible to resurrect the IA and IAF version of trishul to handle the short end particularly when we do not have a cheap alternative? I do not think we can afford spyder or vl-mica everywhere we need shorad for IA and IAF.

I understand the beam rider trishul is dead and probably justifiably so. But AFAIK, the propulsion system, warhead and the launcher of the missile did not have any major problem in the end and now we have the proven akash guidence modules to replace the complex/difficult/faulty beam riding guidance module.

Once such components were in place we did come up with Agni 1 real quick to fulfill a requirement, didn't we?

So, the suggestion of "assembling (desi computer style)" a shorad quick and cheap. The main questions are :
a. whether this quick and cheap assembly is feasible (technically/financially) or not?
b. will the output of this assembly be useful?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 03:22

there is nothing called quick and cheap system., and defintely strategic systems like trishul can never be cheap, though quick (meaning system) and not quick from getting to be accepted by the user. we all know how much difficult is for all the armed forces to accept a system.

btw, trishul as a system come back is not on anyone's agenda for now, unless there is a surprise..

John · Post by **John** » 19 Nov 2009 04:06

Picklu wrote: I understand the beam rider trishul is dead and probably justifiably so. But AFAIK, the propulsion system, warhead and the launcher of the missile did not have any major problem in the end and now we have the proven akash guidence modules to replace the complex/difficult/faulty beam riding guidance module.

But the missile is based on SA-8, redesigning the guidance while still using the old SA-8 design would make little sense. Plus command guidance is vulnerable to saturation attacks better off using Active or IR guidance (Spyder). DRDO should co devolop with a IAI a barak replacement for the IN, a new missile that will fit in existing Barak launcher using Astra's components.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 04:10

furthermore, for a quick reaction scenario (less than 8km), one need more net-centricity right? let say, we have multiple ships disperesed in a formation of within a kilometer space.. let say, there are multiple anti-ship missiles coming at 8th km, and now which one gets the kill, and which one does'nt get engaged at all.?

i am sure, there is more to this tech rather just guidance alone in an operational scenario.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 19 Nov 2009 05:49

John wrote: DRDO should co devolop with a IAI a barak replacement for the IN, a new missile that will fit in existing Barak launcher using Astra's components.

if SPYDER SAM is upgraded to be used on naval vessels and this would be good replacement for BARAK-1

both short range spyder and medium range spyder are ideal for this.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 19 Nov 2009 06:17

John wrote:Plus command guidance is vulnerable to saturation attacks better off using Active or IR guidance (Spyder).

Why is command guidance vulnerable to saturation attacks ? A single Akash battery with a single Rajendra radar can attack 4 targets simultaneously and track 64. From published max range and service cieling and speed of the missile, the missile attacking its outer envelope has a flight time of 60 seconds, possibly less if you consider the optimum engagement range. The launchers will run out of missiles before anything else.

The reason why Spyder uses IR/Active radar guidance is that given their range, they can actually lock on before launch. LOBL is not possible even if Akash is active radar.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Nov 2009 06:26

SaiK wrote:furthermore, for a quick reaction scenario (less than 8km), one need more net-centricity right? let say, we have multiple ships disperesed in a formation of within a kilometer space.. let say, there are multiple anti-ship missiles coming at 8th km, and now which one gets the kill, and which one does'nt get engaged at all.?

i am sure, there is more to this tech rather just guidance alone in an operational scenario.

what is "more net-centricity" ? what gives you the idea that it is not already so for the akash ?

John · Post by **John** » 19 Nov 2009 08:44

Anujan wrote: Why is command guidance vulnerable to saturation attacks ? A single Akash battery with a single Rajendra radar can attack 4 targets simultaneously and track 64. From published max range and service cieling and speed of the missile, the missile attacking its outer envelope has a flight time of 60 seconds, possibly less if you consider the optimum engagement range. The launchers will run out of missiles before anything else.

I was speaking in prespective to naval variant where saturation attacks are main threat. That said for Akash the targets need to be in the LOS of Rajendra for Akash to intercept , so if the targets are originating from two different sides? RIF system with tombstone has a similar weakness.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 09:06

@ SaiK - a shorad is not strategic system and no one is asking to bring back the entire trishul system with its shikari FCR and all. Neither is the proposal to replace BARAK 1 for IN. The suggestion was to develop a shorad for IA and IAF who are already on Akash bandwagon.

@ John - no doubt co-development with yehudi brothers and using astra components will result in a better system but my predictor corrector says mimimum a decade, couple of 1000 Chrores, a few scandals and blacklist scares. I am not saying not to pursue this. But this should be the long term solution ... really really long term like may be 15-20 years from now when barak becomes obsolate and India remain the only country still operating barak. However, we need a short term solution far before that. Going for that better system without looking for the immediate need will be like repeating the same old mistake we are so good at - "best is the worst enemy of better".

@ all - We have a huge land mass and the number of important installations are increasing every day with a prosperous India. We need a shorad yesterday. Covering each and everything with the horribly expensive spyder or vl-mica appears to be a very bad utilization of my tax money.

Btw, rumour has it that Jadavpur Uni did quite some work on both Akash and Trishul, though no idea whether on theoratical side or practical side. Does any guru associated with the educational line in India (unlike moi poor DOO slaving in massaland) has any idea whether it is prossible to get any grant from UGC or DRDO for this kind of study/prototyping?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 19 Nov 2009 09:08

John wrote:I was speaking in prespective to naval variant where saturation attacks are main threat. That said for Akash the targets need to be in the LOS of Rajendra for Akash to intercept , so if the targets are originating from two different sides? RIF system with tombstone has a similar weakness.

Given a weapon system, we can always "armchair" an impossible scenario. For example, if we equip our soldiers with an INSAS rifle, what if enemies are running at him from two different directions ? Does that mean that rifles are an obsolete way to fight ?

On top of that, A group has 4 batteries, each battery with its own FCR which is presumably pointing in different directions. Even if there only one battery, as I had mentioned before, 3D CAR has 360 degree coverage. Even with one battery, the immediate threat can be attacked first, the antenna slewed and the next threat attacked.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Nov 2009 09:21

Picklu wrote: Btw, rumour has it that Jadavpur Uni did quite some work on both Akash and Trishul, though no idea whether on theoratical side or practical side. Does any guru associated with the educational line in India (unlike moi poor DOO slaving in massaland) has any idea whether it is prossible to get any grant from UGC or DRDO for this kind of study/prototyping?

IIRC JU was involved in nag MMW seeker.

the answer to the other Q is yes. I know a trainee monk (brahmachari) from RK Mission who was working on a DRDO funded project on GaAs at JU for his PhD.

in general if any reputable org (IOW they will not run away with the money) applies for funds for a promising project DRDO is quite generous. I remember that way back in early 2000's the pvt engn institute, IEM salt lake had gotten funds from DRDO for a rotary UAV project they were doing.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 Nov 2009 09:29

I know a trainee monk (brahmachari) from RK Mission who was working on a DRDO funded project on GaAs at JU for his PhD.

Only in India.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 19 Nov 2009 09:32

thanks for the info Rahul.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Nov 2009 10:08

sanjaykumar wrote:I know a trainee monk (brahmachari) from RK Mission who was working on a DRDO funded project on GaAs at JU for his PhD.

Only in India.

and for zero remuneration too.

monks are forbidden to take part in any paying activity by their code of conduct. the funding was spent only on instruments and materials.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 19 Nov 2009 10:27

On the topic of Trishul; Paawaala says there is a strong push to revive the project to take it to completion. Not sure if it is beam riding one..

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 19 Nov 2009 11:58

Are there any reports on how Akash performs on targets dispensing chaff and flares for evasion? the Red flag exercise would have showed our contingent what TSP's f-16 flares are like

even the C-130 special mission ones with chaff dispensers we are purchasing from US should work as test systems

How good is the on-board seeker at discrimination after it takes over 10-15kms from target interception?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 19 Nov 2009 12:07

vasu_ray wrote:Are there any reports on how Akash performs on targets dispensing chaff and flares for evasion? the Red flag exercise would have showed our contingent what TSP's f-16 flares are like

even the C-130 special mission ones with chaff dispensers we are purchasing from US should work as test systems

Flares dont work against radar guided missiles.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 19 Nov 2009 12:14

Anujan wrote:Flares dont work against radar guided missiles.

How good is the on-board seeker at discrimination after it takes over 10-15kms from target interception? or Akash is completely Raj guided?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Nov 2009 14:44

seriously, flares against a radar guided missile ? on board seeker of akash ?

vasu, you are putting DDM to shame !
please educate yourself of the basics of the system first. google is your friend.

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Nov 2009 15:01

Baldev wrote:if SPYDER SAM is upgraded to be used on naval vessels and this would be good replacement for BARAK-1

both short range SPYDER and medium range spyder are ideal for this.

I was thinking barak1 has more velocity and maneuverability then python or derby. Barak was specifically designed to takeout Anti-Ship missiles which perform highspeed maneuvers at terminal phase. Python on the other hand in an anti aircraft missile in the first place and anti cruise missile use is a bonus capability.
A simple sensor upgrade wouldn't suffice if it were to complement Barak I.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 19 Nov 2009 17:52

koti wrote:I was thinking barak1 has more velocity and maneuverability then python or derby. Barak was specifically designed to takeout Anti-Ship missiles which perform highspeed maneuvers at terminal phase. Python on the other hand in an anti aircraft missile in the first place and anti cruise missile use is a bonus capability.
A simple sensor upgrade wouldn't suffice if it were to complement Barak I.

barak-1 is slow missile compared to derby and python5

VL launch MR SPYDER totally outclasses BARAK-1 if configured for naval purpose

python SAM is all purpose missile not just anti aircraft.

moreover spyder sam is point defence system means it can also be used for naval purposes as a point defence system

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 19:47

rahul ji, for some reason i was thinking about anti-missile system for a change.. not sure what was the driver for net-centric thought. i am sure, the whole game plan would be different to protect IN ships with missile defence technologies.

..guess we have none now. it would be the greatest system in the world if drdo can develop that counters an attack from missiles like brahmos with multiple kill vehicles with coordinated system setup.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Nov 2009 19:49

vasu_ray wrote:Are there any reports on how Akash performs on targets dispensing chaff and flares for evasion? the Red flag exercise would have showed our contingent what TSP's f-16 flares are like

even the C-130 special mission ones with chaff dispensers we are purchasing from US should work as test systems

Vasu ray's original question is "chaff and flares". Later chaff - so please. No comparison with DDM

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Nov 2009 20:33

Aye BRF page says

In appearance, Akash is very similar to the ZRK-SD Kub (SA-6), with four long tube ramjet inlet ducts mounted mid-body between wings. Four clipped triangular moving wings, mid-body, for pitch/yaw control. Forward of tail, four inline clipped delta fins with ailerons for roll control. Flight control surfaces operated by pneumatic actuators. The warhead has a lethal radius of 20 metres, weighs 60 kg and has Doppler radar proximity/contact fusing. The missile is believed to have tail G/H-Band beacon to assist tracking by engagement radar. Guidance system is inertial with mid-course command updates from Rajendra and semi-active radar seeker for terminal phase (final 3-4 seconds).

Anyways from what I gather the MAWS would trigger both chaff as well as a flare dispenser irrespective of the kind of guidance the incoming missile employs ,as semi active guided missile in class of R-27 should appear just like any other passive seeker enabled missile to the target AC.

I believe a Radar in class of Rajendra stands a better chance of discriminating a target from 'chaff' when compared to an on board seeker , specially for the kind of range and altitude (low level engagements) within which Aakash is meant to engage targets.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 20:56

any tests of akash/rajendra against stealthy targets, planned/happened?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 19 Nov 2009 22:11

negi wrote:Anyways from what I gather the MAWS would trigger both chaff as well as a flare dispenser irrespective of the kind of guidance the incoming missile employs ,as semi active guided missile in class of R-27 should appear just like any other passive seeker enabled missile to the target AC.

I believe a Radar in class of Rajendra stands a better chance of discriminating a target from 'chaff' when compared to an on board seeker , specially for the kind of range and altitude (low level engagements) within which Aakash is meant to engage targets.

Does this mean MAWS has only 3-4 seconds to identify, assess the Akash threat and start acting on it? still, 3-4 secs translates to 3kms from target.

Rahul M, Shiv, next time I would put more context around the post.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Nov 2009 22:19

Akash is command guided throughout. Rajendra has auto adaptive MTI, CFAR filtering, intra pulse diversity and inhibition of jammed frequencies that make it highly resistant to any form of ECM.

Problem is with ARM’s, especially the ones that home in on the GPS plot of the last transmission.

However, unlike normal surveillance radars, Rajendra engagement radar beams ONLY when ADGE decides it is the most optimum radar and the most optimum time to engage the target.

Given high missile speeds and the relatively short distance (25 km), the enemy aircraft will have seconds to react and onboard DF systems will not be able to cue the ARM missiles in time.

Using statistics from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... h-sam.html

Akash reaction time from detection to missile launch is 15 seconds. Solid booster accelerates missile to Mach 1.5 in 4.5 seconds.

Straining to recollect what I leant decades back in std IX, a=(v-u)/t and s=ut+(1/2)at2, and assuming Mach 1 = 340.29 m/s, we get s=1.14 km in the 4.5 seconds from missile launch.

Ramjet kicks in and accelerates missile to Mach 2.8 - 3.5 in 30 seconds.

Assuming v=Mach 2.8 and using the above formulae, Akash travels further 21.9 km in 30 seconds. Total distance covered = 21.9+1.14 = 23 km.

Assuming it travels the last 2 km of its 25 km maximum range at Mach 2.8, time taken will be 2 seconds.

So Akash, from detection to impact at maximum range 25 km takes 15+4.5+30+2 seconds = 51.5 seconds, which in my view leaves very little time for any aircraft to react. If using a datalink, we can shave off the 15 seconds, giving time from launch to impact 36.5 seconds. The standard RWR suite is used for activating chaff/flares and won’t be able to provide accurate direction finding.

I guess intra pulse frequency diversity will also make DF harder.

I have used rudimentary methods above, others can validate/correct it.

Refer here for the effectiveness of an ADGE net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrkonji%C4 ... d_incident

The Serbians used civilian air traffic control radars to track the F-16s and the data was communicated via landline to the SA-6 battery that switched on their CWI engagement radar at the last moment.

Way forward is active homing – Barak 8 + Python/Derby Spyder. There are no countermeasures for an IIR seeker.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 19 Nov 2009 22:27

-deleted-

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 19 Nov 2009 22:30

SaiK wrote:any tests of akash/rajendra against stealthy targets, planned/happened?

first all there is need for more powerful volume search radar which has maximum detection range upto and over 300km to detect stealthy targets.stealthy target can only be engaged if it is detected.

moreover there is also must have ground based mobile ESM systems along with mobile SAM systems.

just like there are EW aircrafts along with strike and interceptor aircrafts
so similarly same purpose is served by ground based ESM systems.

ESM system can suppress various kinds of airborne/missile radars,data links,IFF,communication signals,space based radars or create false signals,so all this can't be done by search/fire control radars.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 19 Nov 2009 22:40

tsarkar wrote:Given high missile speeds and the relatively short distance (25 km), the enemy aircraft will have seconds to react and onboard DF systems will not be able to cue the ARM missiles in time.

Using statistics from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... h-sam.html

Akash reaction time from detection to missile launch is 15 seconds. Solid booster accelerates missile to Mach 1.5 in 4.5 seconds.

Straining to recollect what I leant decades back in std IX, a=(v-u)/t and s=ut+(1/2)at2, and assuming Mach 1 = 340.29 m/s, we get s=1.14 km in the 4.5 seconds from missile launch.

Ramjet kicks in and accelerates missile to Mach 2.8 - 3.5 in 30 seconds.

Assuming v=Mach 2.8 and using the above formulae, Akash travels further 21.9 km in 30 seconds. Total distance covered = 21.9+1.14 = 23 km.

Assuming it travels the last 2 km of its 25 km maximum range at Mach 2.8, time taken will be 2 seconds.

So Akash, from detection to impact at maximum range 25 km takes 15+4.5+30+2 seconds = 51.5 seconds, which in my view leaves very little time for any aircraft to react. If using a datalink, we can shave off the 15 seconds, giving time from launch to impact 36.5 seconds. The standard RWR suite is used for activating chaff/flares and won’t be able to provide accurate direction finding.

moreover akaash missile need not be stationed close to rajendra radar say at 20-25km away and enemy aircraft flying right above the SAM, while radar is 20-25km away

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Nov 2009 23:05

we have to only draw the requirements.. we have enough PSUs to provide and support ESM and ECMs.

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 19 Nov 2009 23:09

SaiK wrote:we have to only draw the requirements.. we have enough PSUs to provide and support ESM and ECMs.

Samyukta

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 20 Nov 2009 03:24

vipins wrote:
SaiK wrote:we have to only draw the requirements.. we have enough PSUs to provide and support ESM and ECMs.
Samyukta

true

a SAM system without ECM/ESM is just like a fighter without RWR,jammer,MAWS,FLARES,CHAFFS,LASER WARNING system

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Nov 2009 04:47

John wrote:
Anujan wrote: Why is command guidance vulnerable to saturation attacks ? A single Akash battery with a single Rajendra radar can attack 4 targets simultaneously and track 64. From published max range and service cieling and speed of the missile, the missile attacking its outer envelope has a flight time of 60 seconds, possibly less if you consider the optimum engagement range. The launchers will run out of missiles before anything else.
I was speaking in prespective to naval variant where saturation attacks are main threat. That said for Akash the targets need to be in the LOS of Rajendra for Akash to intercept , so if the targets are originating from two different sides? RIF system with tombstone has a similar weakness.

Anujan wrote:
Nihat wrote:It's good that IAF and IA have not pushed DRDO for the best product , even if Akash has a few drawbacks such as non-AESA , not revolving radar and absence of Seeker , the armed forces do realize the merit behind inducting an indigenous missile and the ease of convenience when it comes to production and upgrades.
What do you mean by "Non revolving Radar" ? The Radar can be slewed and the beam steers +-45 degrees to give 90 degree coverage.

If you mean that it cannot detect targets in a 360 degree range, then you have to understand the deployment scenario. The 3D CAR has 360 degree coverage, acquires the target and provides a 200KM early warning. The Rajendra the slews to the direction the threats are arriving from and starts search to acquire the target. Then starts tracking 64 and attacks 4. This lack of mechanical revolving is actually a good thing, reduces wear and tear and lightens the Radar considerably.

Ideal deployment of Akash SAM system is in a Group mode with 4 batteries covering a large area. There are 3 radars available in this Group mode:

1. Group Control Center (GCC)
i. 3D Central Acquisition Radar (3D CAR) which can track 200 targets @ 150Km

2. Battery Control Centre (BCC)
i. Battery Surveillance Radar (BSR) which can track 40 tragets @ 100km
ii. Battery Level Radar (BLR) aka "Rajendra Radar" which can track 20 targets @ 60km and guide 8 missiles at 4 targets (within 30km)

Box configuration

Each battery is placed such that the four BCCs effectively cover the corner of a box of side 62 km. Each battery is defended by the other two adjacent batteries and the GCC is well within the coverage of all the four batteries. Full 360-degree radar coverage can be obtained without slewing the tracking radar. This deployment pattern can defend an area of 62km x 62km.

In a group mode placed in a box configuration, Akash SAM system will be able to engage 16 targets (4 per battery in one quadrant) coming from multiple directions simultaneously. tsakar had calculated around 36.5 seconds to 51.5 seconds for engaging a 25km target. So in a group mode, Akash will be able to engage 16 targets every 30 seconds -2 minutes or so in a saturation attack. And it can engage targets flying at speeds up to 600m/s (or around Mach 1.8 velocity of target).

John · Post by **John** » 20 Nov 2009 05:36

Anujan wrote:Given a weapon system, we can always "armchair" an impossible scenario. For example, if we equip our soldiers with an INSAS rifle, what if enemies are running at him from two different directions ? Does that mean that rifles are an obsolete way to fight ?

On top of that, A group has 4 batteries, each battery with its own FCR which is presumably pointing in different directions. Even if there only one battery, as I had mentioned before, 3D CAR has 360 degree coverage. Even with one battery, the immediate threat can be attacked first, the antenna slewed and the next threat attacked.

Comparison is not valid, unlike a rifle a air defense system can be countered easily with the right counter measures

tsarkar wrote:Given high missile speeds and the relatively short distance (25 km), the enemy aircraft will have seconds to react and onboard DF systems will not be able to cue the ARM missiles in time.

Yes the targeted aircraft won't be able to cue the ARM missile but it will give itself away to HARPY like system, IIRC PRC also has plenty of. Also the enemy aircraft can simply fly out of Akash's engagement window, Israeli pilots exploited the range weakness of SA-6 in Yom Kippur conflict.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Nov 2009 05:57

John wrote: Comparison is not valid, unlike a rifle a air defense system can be countered easily with the right counter measures

Yes in fact above statement is true for any weapons platform which you wish to substitute in place of the underlined entity.

, what gives ?

tsarkar wrote: Yes the targeted aircraft won't be able to cue the ARM missile but it will give itself away to HARPY like system, IIRC PRC also has plenty of. Also the enemy aircraft can simply fly out of Akash's engagement window, Israeli pilots exploited the range weakness of SA-6 in Yom Kippur conflict.

Platforms like HARPY are a threat to all sorts of ADS assets whether it be Rajendra or even Swordfish . HARPY does not need a radar to be in tracking mode to target it , it can very well identify and engage any volume search or a surveillance radar . The main question is why do you assume that HARPY won't get detected and shot down even before it locks on to Rajendra ? Btw in my scenario I can visualize Tunguska M1's 30mm shells ripping apart a HARPY even before it maneuvers in for a kill.