Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 20:40

kvraghavaiah wrote:1. What is the need of semi active or active RADAR homing in medium or long range SAMs.
Does it give better target tracking accuracy considering the distance between main RADAR and target(SAM will be realtively near to target after launch).

An active radar homing missile illuminates and follows the target on its own eliminating the need for the launch aircraft or some other radar source to hang around and illuminate the target until the missile hits.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 20:43

nukavarapu wrote:
shiv wrote:Typically rocket boosters are fitted to the airframe as a separate attachment - usually on the side of the fuselage. They can be jettisoned after take off. They have been used for decades - even by Indian aircraft to assist take off in short and/or high airfields. It is called RATO (Rocket Assisted Take Off)


I thought we were talking about using rocket boosters in Jet Fighter aircrafts for quick acceleration and for evasive tactics. No?


OK I saw that now.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 16 Jun 2010 21:10

kvraghavaiah wrote:many strategic technologies need not be well known to all. An aircrafts speed can be boosted with extra rocket boosters, in time of need (for escaping anti aircraft missiles with speed or height of fly) :idea: :)

Fitting a rocket booster is not a complex technology.

watching swat kats might not be the best way to get a handle on real world technology. :wink:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 21:22

kvraghavaiah wrote: Any height of reach improvements? (18 KM is not enough. F-22 reaches to 20 km and a fighter fitted with extra solid rockets may reach to 25 km height. Who knows if Rocket booster implementation is alredy known to rivals)


kvraghavaiah, I don't know if you have the specific educational background for this - any engineer/engg student could probably do it I guess. I am not one but have a vague idea of teh basics

You have to imagine a plane - maybe a mythical one with a rocket booster for height flying at say 16 km at say 1000 kmph and an Akash is launched at that aircraft once it reaches an optimum range - say when the plane is 25 km away (16 km up and some km to one side approaching the Akash launcher)

How long will the Akash take to reach the plane?

How will the pilot know that an Akash has been launched at him?

How long after launch will he find out that he has an Akash heading at him? Will he find out at all?

At what speed is it hurtling at him?

How long will it take for his afterburner/rocket to accelerate him up and over 18 km to safety?

Every one of these factors counts and 18 km is a very decent altitude to reach. If all planes want to avoid all Akash missiles they will all have to fly in at 17 plus km - at which height they will be visible a long long way away on radar unless they are exceptionally stealthy. Any interceptor flying at a comfortable 10 km altitude should be able to get the plane 7 km above him with a short range missile.

JMT

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8230
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jun 2010 21:30

nukavarapu wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I dont really know if the IAF has a requirement for the above. But I do know that the IA has requested information on Javelin. I feel that the NAG should give the DRDO enough confidence to Develop the javelin equivelent in a short period of time.


Its not gonna be easy at all. The current series of NAG weighs 42 kg. To make it Man portable you have to bring it down to 12 kg. Anything more than that, will be too heavy and too cumbersome to handle and will definitely effect the performance of our soldier, especially under fire. Though the man portable version will have a decreased range of up to 2.5 kms. Weight reduction is not something we are that good with, because our military industry complex till lacks latest know how on alloys and material science in general. With the decreased range we can see less fuel in the casing and maybe a somewhat lighter booster though I have feeling that the IIR seeker is not going to change and its weight will be the same. Reducing the weight to 1/3rd with 1/2 the range is gonna be tough.

What I am implying is that its not impossible, but its not gonna be quick.


I think you mis-understood what i have been trying to say. Let me try to explain. This is for illustration only :twisted: NAG seeker and flight control system mated to the MILAN type warhead and a smaller motor. Should do the trick. The seeker and control system should be light weight enough for them to do the trick.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8230
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jun 2010 21:55

Singha wrote:wrt 2)

in Ahuja sir's scenario imagine what half a squadron of Tejas armed with such a weapon (12 each) could do? a typhoon can theoritically carry 24
per wiki on 8 triple pylons. a couple of rounds and the back of the chinese divisional MSR to DBG could be broken :evil:


Saar Ji,

My over active imagination is also coming up with a brand new weapon using NAG seeker for Ahujha Sirs scenario.

Begging the gurus indulgence;

Some thing like the SDB And fit it with the NAG seeker and a small high impulse booster should give a range of approx 120 miles. A SU 30 ought to be able to carry at least 16 of these.

Will be great to killing The S 300s that are impeding the IAF in his scenario.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 16 Jun 2010 22:15

ramana wrote:Chacko, In the jul08 pdf of the DRDO newsletter there is picture of the LGB with a checker board pattern on the fore fins. One paints pattern like that for visual tracking to see the roll along the axis.


Ramanna,

sorry, just saw this now. I will check and tell. Internet woobly now due to heavy rains.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2010 22:22

Pratuysh wrote:
Saar Ji,

My over active imagination is also coming up with a brand new weapon using NAG seeker for Ahujha Sirs scenario.

Begging the gurus indulgence;

Some thing like the SDB And fit it with the NAG seeker and a small high impulse booster should give a range of approx 120 miles. A SU 30 ought to be able to carry at least 16 of these.

Will be great to killing The S 300s that are impeding the IAF in his scenario.



The IGMDP had the Trishul in an airborne role to take out radars from long range. I guess there was a role which got dropped. Your idea should fit that role. Also whats needed is a modular warhead whcih can be fitted with various boosterrs and guidance packages. And the warhead can come in different variants.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8230
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jun 2010 22:28

ramana wrote:
The IGMDP had the Trishul in an airborne role to take out radars from long range. I guess there was a role which got dropped. Your idea should fit that role. Also whats needed is a modular warhead whcih can be fitted with various boosterrs and guidance packages. And the warhead can come in different variants.


What you have described is very close to what I had in mind.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2010 22:38

Chacko, See page 11 of this link

DRDO News Letter, July 08

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Samay » 17 Jun 2010 00:05

Here is a nag type MANPATGM ..http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/rbs56-bill.htm[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i6TrvVo_6Z4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i6TrvVo_6Z4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 17 Jun 2010 00:58

Samay wrote:Here is a nag type MANPATGM ..<SNIP>


Sirji, I don't think we can compare the NAG with Bill 2 ATGM.

This is what the Wiki says about Bill 2 ATGM:

The BILL 2 uses OTA or Overfly Top Attack to attack its target. The missile flies towards the target on a standard horizontal trajectory, but rather than directly hitting the target head on, it overflies it, detonating its warhead on top of an armored vehicle, where the armour is usually lighter


The missile's shaped charge warhead is aimed downwards at an angle of 30 degrees and is triggered by a proximity fuze as the missile passes over the intended target.
(this is from Bill 1 wiki page)

In our case, the ATGM flies in a parabolic flight, like the Javelin ATGM and strikes the target at near vertical angle. Also, iirc, the warhead is not arranged in any angled fashion like the Bill 2.

Check this video of NAG ATGM firing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWJPi7K1Fc

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Samay » 17 Jun 2010 01:09

But both of them use the same fundamental technique to hit the target from the top ,where armour protection is supposed to be weaker.?
also if it successfully penetrates most modern tank armour and since we are still developing/testing MANPATGM ,wont it be good to buy a few thousand .. IMO bill2 video is impressive
javelin is too costly

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Jun 2010 01:38

One more difference: Bill 2 uses a wire guidance, like Konkur or Kornet. Nag doesnt. Spike & Javelin dont either. We have enough wire-guided MANPATGMs like Konkurs & Kornet. The next gen should either be Spike/Javelin or the man portable low-weight version of Nag

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 17 Jun 2010 02:01

^^^Kornet is Laser Beam rider.

Samay, there is a fundamental difference in the way Bill 2 approaches the target and the way NAG does....
As for the ATGM we should/could buy, well, I have no idea why a RFP is not out in the market.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Jun 2010 02:54

Pratyush wrote:
Singha wrote:wrt 2)

in Ahuja sir's scenario imagine what half a squadron of Tejas armed with such a weapon (12 each) could do? a typhoon can theoritically carry 24
per wiki on 8 triple pylons. a couple of rounds and the back of the chinese divisional MSR to DBG could be broken :evil:


Saar Ji,

My over active imagination is also coming up with a brand new weapon using NAG seeker for Ahujha Sirs scenario.

Begging the gurus indulgence;

Some thing like the SDB And fit it with the NAG seeker and a small high impulse booster should give a range of approx 120 miles. A SU 30 ought to be able to carry at least 16 of these.

Will be great to killing The S 300s that are impeding the IAF in his scenario.


This is an interesting train of thought. For taking out S-300's, the current plan (one assumes) is using air-launched Brahmos or Harop. Both have their advantages but also disadvantages. While the Brahmos is Mach 3+ making it difficult to intercept, it also has a fairly large RCS. An SDB would hardly show up on an S-300 radar. If the range can be made 120 miles as you state, combined with GPS precision, it will have good lethality against SAM sites.

Added later: Shiv - this might be a topic to discuss in your thread "Anticipating & countering future military threats/challenges". The Chinese S-300s are probably our biggest headache in achieving air dominance over the border & Tibet. So, tactics to counter it is a worthwhile discussion.
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 17 Jun 2010 03:19, edited 1 time in total.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Jun 2010 02:55

rohitvats wrote:^^^Kornet is Laser Beam rider.


Thanks - you are right

saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 350
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby saumitra_j » 17 Jun 2010 08:41

Ok folks, long time since I wrote on BRF but couple of the posts on missile here almost forced me to write :D. Let me post my thoughts:
What is the need of semi active or active RADAR homing in medium or long range SAMs.

The answer is quite simple: It is solving an engineering problem and acceptance of a fact that there are no silver bullets! In case of medium and short range missiles, adding an active seeker can increase costs tremendously! Remember - missiles are always fired on a one way suicide mission; so any radar that you put in an "active" seeker is going to be destroyed; that jacks up the costs quite a bit; might as well guide the missile from the main radar using semi active guidance - the main radar does not get destroyed (unless it has swallowed an ARM) and that will also simplify the electronics of the missile quite a bit. The other problem with putting an active seeker in the missile is the limited real estate available in the missile's body - remember radar performance is directly related to the radius of the antenna - which is why the limited performance of an on board radar in a missile's nose cone may not justify the costs and complexities involved.
In case of long range missiles, there is a different problem; remember the semi active missiles need to communicate with the main radar all the time - which means that link is liable to be jammed;also the main radar can be traced from a long distance and is marked for some ARM; An active radar (albeit with limited performance) makes sense as once the missile goes active, the main radar can be disengaged and scoot; and the missile can chase the targets; the missile's radar can also be jammed; however that can still work because once the missile goes active, it will go in the general direction of the target; when the target tries to jam the missile's radar, it will betray it's position to the enemy! In any case, the target will have to deal with the immediate threat of the missile instead of the primary mission, which in times of war can mean a successful mission for the enemy!
Remember the designers always work under constraints: Cheaper semi active missiles can be jammed and their primary radar tracked and destroyed; active missiles are expensive but work well for long ranges; With the advent of IIR (Imaging Infra Red) seekers, dual mode seekers can change the game significantly; however IIR seekers are also quite expensive.
As I remember, homing RADARs of PAD and AAD and ASTRA were bought from Russia
Any source of this information? As far as I know, AGAT radar set was bought off the shelf for Astra - basically to de-risk the program; Not too sure about AAD and PAD; I think PAD uses some sort of IIR seeker if I am not mistaken; however will be happy to be corrected.
Akash in its present form has a Radio Proximity fuze which is something inferior to radio seeker, but I guess it does the job as the tests have shown it to be very accurate
No my friend, radio proximity fuse is different from a active radar seeker; the former is a detonation mechanism for the missile's warhead; the latter is an active radar in missile's nose cone. Akash is semi active missile with a radio proximity fuse on it's warhead.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby negi » 17 Jun 2010 08:46

PAD and AAD have RF seekers.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Jun 2010 10:37

Correction saumitra_j: Akash is command guided - meaning it is not semi-active. Rajendra has to tell it which way to turn.

For PAD and AAD, I am curious to know if command guidance can take-over (to re-guide the missile) if the active seeker in the terminal phase loses its lock because of a maneuvering RV

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Jun 2010 11:39

saumitra_j wrote:
As I remember, homing RADARs of PAD and AAD and ASTRA were bought from Russia
Any source of this information? As far as I know, AGAT radar set was bought off the shelf for Astra - basically to de-risk the program; Not too sure about AAD and PAD; I think PAD uses some sort of IIR seeker if I am not mistaken; however will be happy to be corrected.


Welcome Saumitra after a long time.

Astra seeker is from MBDA , from what I have read and posted at BR its the same as used on Meteor

PAD currently uses RF/ARH seeker co-developed with Russia , the new all solid fuel PDV will have IIR seeker , both confirmed by VKS in an interview.

kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby kvraghavaiah » 17 Jun 2010 18:22

shiv wrote:
kvraghavaiah wrote: Any height of reach improvements? (18 KM is not enough. F-22 reaches to 20 km and a fighter fitted with extra solid rockets may reach to 25 km height. Who knows if Rocket booster implementation is alredy known to rivals)


kvraghavaiah, I don't know if you have the specific educational background for this - any engineer/engg student could probably do it I guess. I am not one but have a vague idea of teh basics

You have to imagine a plane - maybe a mythical one with a rocket booster for height flying at say 16 km at say 1000 kmph and an Akash is launched at that aircraft once it reaches an optimum range - say when the plane is 25 km away (16 km up and some km to one side approaching the Akash launcher)

How long will the Akash take to reach the plane?

How will the pilot know that an Akash has been launched at him?

How long after launch will he find out that he has an Akash heading at him? Will he find out at all?

At what speed is it hurtling at him?

How long will it take for his afterburner/rocket to accelerate him up and over 18 km to safety?

Every one of these factors counts and 18 km is a very decent altitude to reach. If all planes want to avoid all Akash missiles they will all have to fly in at 17 plus km - at which height they will be visible a long long way away on radar unless they are exceptionally stealthy. Any interceptor flying at a comfortable 10 km altitude should be able to get the plane 7 km above him with a short range missile.

JMT


Hi,
An aircraft can assume SAM threat when it identifies a RADAR signal and fly high in that region. It need not wait till a SAM is identified on the way. A full after burner can not take aircraft to mach 4 and so the height is limited to 20 km max. But, an added solid rocket can speed up aircraft at heights where turbo engine thrust is limited. The same rocket boosting mechanism can be used to do manouevers or escapes using speed. Solid rocket does not depend on oxygen in air and this is the advantage in reaching heights, where as gas turbines can not go beyond 20 km height.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 17 Jun 2010 19:26

kvraghavaiah wrote:Hi,
An aircraft can assume SAM threat when it identifies a RADAR signal and fly high in that region. It need not wait till a SAM is identified on the way. A full after burner can not take aircraft to mach 4 and so the height is limited to 20 km max. But, an added solid rocket can speed up aircraft at heights where turbo engine thrust is limited. The same rocket boosting mechanism can be used to do manouevers or escapes using speed. Solid rocket does not depend on oxygen in air and this is the advantage in reaching heights, where as gas turbines can not go beyond 20 km height.


But saar the missile will come and hit the aircraft long before he turns on his rocket motor to outrun the missile no? The missile is flying so fast the man does not even have time to send a goodbye SMS 2 his wife.

Also, if the planes are attacking and they escape the missiles. Do they then turn back home or press on with the attack? When they descend for an attack more missiles will be fired, but they would have used up all their rocket fuel no? Sooner or later they will get shot down.

Either way the missiles would have done the job and the rocket business will be useless.

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby David Siegel » 17 Jun 2010 19:33

Sagem’s Sigma 30 Artillery Navigation and Pointing System Deployed By First Two Pinaka Multiple Launch Rocket System Regiments

http://idrw.org/?p=2080#more-2080

Sagem (Safran group) has completed delivery of its Sigma 30 artillery navigation and pointing systems to the first two regiments in the Indian army deploying the Pinaka multiple launch rocket system (MLRS).

Developed and produced by Sagem, the Sigma 30 is a laser gyro land navigation and pointing system for artillery pieces, enabling highly accurate firing on short notice.

Sagem has also set up a maintenance shop near New Delhi to help the Indian army keep its Sigma 30 systems in fighting trim. Indian mechanics received specialized training for this system in both France and India.

The Defense R&D Organisation, part of the Indian Ministry of Defence, originally chose the Sigma 30 system in 2008. They were installed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Tata Power Company Ltd., the two Indian companies in charge of integrating the Pinaka MLRS.

The Sigma 30 pointing system has been proven in combat on a Caesar 155 mm gun. It is also used with NATO’s Mars MLRS and the 2R2M 120 mm mobile mortar, within the scope of a modernization program. In addition, the Sigma 30 has been qualified on the Archer, Donar, PZH 2000 and FH 77 B05 155 mm guns.

Artillery systems by Sagem, now deployed by 20 armed forces worldwide, cover a wide range of state-of-the-art applications, including advanced observation systems, optronic sensors, navigation and pointing systems, fire control, computers, digital mapping, systems integration.

Sagem, a high-tech company in the Safran group, holds world or European leadership positions in optronics, avionics, electronics and safety-critical software for both civil and military markets. Sagem is the No. 1 company in Europe and No. 3 worldwide for inertial navigation systems (INS) used in air, land and naval applications. It is also the world leader in helicopter flight controls and the European leader in optronics and tactical UAV systems. Operating across the globe through the Safran group, Sagem and its subsidiaries employ 6,700 people in Europe, Southeast Asia and North America. Sagem is the commercial name of the company Sagem Défense Sécurité.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby KrishG » 17 Jun 2010 19:39

kvraghavaiah wrote:Hi,
An aircraft can assume SAM threat when it identifies a RADAR signal and fly high in that region. It need not wait till a SAM is identified on the way. A full after burner can not take aircraft to mach 4 and so the height is limited to 20 km max. But, an added solid rocket can speed up aircraft at heights where turbo engine thrust is limited. The same rocket boosting mechanism can be used to do manouevers or escapes using speed. Solid rocket does not depend on oxygen in air and this is the advantage in reaching heights, where as gas turbines can not go beyond 20 km height.


1. combat a/cs are not designed to survive such high speeds and altitudes. The loads induced on the airframe would tear it apart.
2. SRMs are very heavy and dangerous and cannot be accommodated on combat aircraft.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby negi » 17 Jun 2010 20:05

Prem Kumar wrote:For PAD and AAD, I am curious to know if command guidance can take-over (to re-guide the missile) if the active seeker in the terminal phase loses its lock because of a maneuvering RV

Well the DRDO has not yet disclosed the system architecture but I suspect we might be getting mixed up with RF seeker on missile with active guidance (where onboard seeker paints as well as calculates the position and velocity vector of the target) , I guess guidance method of choice would be TVM and before that the interceptor itself will be placed in the kill box by the ground based RADAR with aid of INS.Maintaining the RADAR lock might be an issue for ground hugging cruise missiles which might get foliage or a hillock between itself and the ground based Radar less likely at altitudes where PAD and AAD make their kills.
Last edited by negi on 17 Jun 2010 20:28, edited 1 time in total.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nikhil_p » 17 Jun 2010 20:15

shiv wrote:
kvraghavaiah wrote:Hi,
An aircraft can assume SAM threat when it identifies a RADAR signal and fly high in that region. It need not wait till a SAM is identified on the way. A full after burner can not take aircraft to mach 4 and so the height is limited to 20 km max. But, an added solid rocket can speed up aircraft at heights where turbo engine thrust is limited. The same rocket boosting mechanism can be used to do manouevers or escapes using speed. Solid rocket does not depend on oxygen in air and this is the advantage in reaching heights, where as gas turbines can not go beyond 20 km height.


But saar the missile will come and hit the aircraft long before he turns on his rocket motor to outrun the missile no? The missile is flying so fast the man does not even have time to send a goodbye SMS 2 his wife.

Also, if the planes are attacking and they escape the missiles. Do they then turn back home or press on with the attack? When they descend for an attack more missiles will be fired, but they would have used up all their rocket fuel no? Sooner or later they will get shot down.

Either way the missiles would have done the job and the rocket business will be useless.


Moreover solid rockets are difficult to turn off and on all the time. Will need a liquid rocket for that. There also is a weight penalty, which will reduce the usable load of the a/c and may also affect range (if i use less fuel to compensate for excess weight). Also the g acceleration will be higher meaning the a/c will have to be stressed to handle more g-stress which will mean additional weight. Also a rocket will not provide instantenous acceleration...there will be a slight time lag...
Anyways, please post such ideas in the Misc thread.

saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 350
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby saumitra_j » 17 Jun 2010 20:42

Thanks Austin, Prem for correcting me. Negi Saar: Doesn't the PAD have a big window on the side near the top? I thought that was the IR/IIR seeker of some sort; a BM warhead would surely be radiating big time and would be easy to trace. From wikipedia the PAD/AAD radar seekers were supposed to be indigenous; again I suspect DRDO would have gone for Russian collaboration to de-risk the project; As part of the ABM program, DRDO has had to master many technologies; It must have been an extremely software intensive program; I am sure we will develop our own seekers in the future versions;

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby negi » 17 Jun 2010 23:16

^ Hmm interesting you might be right , but this is what was my comment was based on.

Now given that Program AD does include AAD as well the following seeker might be for AAD as well. :-?

http://i34.tinypic.com/289f09w.jpg

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19578
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Jun 2010 00:11

PAD seeker is locally developed.
AAD seeker involved help from Agat
Astra seeker is from Agat, MBDA procurement did not go through

shijo
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 11:55

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shijo » 18 Jun 2010 07:17

Prithvi 2 with 350km range test-fired from Orissa coast.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 18 Jun 2010 07:31

^^Nuke-capable Prithvi-II test fired successfully
Nuke-capable surface to surface missile Prithvi -II was test-fired successfully from the Interim Test Range (ITR), Chandipur in Orissa on Friday morning.

Nuke capable Prithvi -II has a strike range of 350 km and a 2 stage engine. It is 9 metre long and one metre wide and can carry a payload of 500 kgs.

Prithvi -II has already been inducted into the army & this was a user's trial by the Indian Army.


chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 18 Jun 2010 12:50

Prithvi II test

Guys some awesome camo. I am adding 2 more pics in few minutes

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2010 13:12

the missile seems a single stage and there is no warhead separation. so what is meant by a 2 stage engine?

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Marut » 18 Jun 2010 14:13

^^
Clicky
The liquid fuel engine in its full glory. Hopefully we move over to the soild fuel engines sooner than later or atleast replace the red oxidizing nitric acid with something better.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby K Mehta » 18 Jun 2010 19:32

Is it me or does the warhead seem to have a different camo/ lighter shade than the missile body?

Was this a test of a newer warhead design?
BTW the camo does look awesome!

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 18 Jun 2010 21:37

"Hopefully we move over to the soild fuel engines sooner than later "

There are ambiguous references to a solid fueled Prithvi. Can anyone confirm that it does exist, and has been tested. It's supposedly called the Prithvi-3.

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby David Siegel » 18 Jun 2010 22:35

We have come across news that Indian home grown BMD (PAD/AAD) will be tested in this month. As we are heading month end, is this a launch of Prithvi II is that of modified target missile with manipulated trajectory-- to ensure that we don't encounter a so called failure of BMD Testing (attributed to erroneous trajectory of the target missile last time)? :twisted:

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Marut » 18 Jun 2010 22:50

Varoon Shekhar wrote:"Hopefully we move over to the soild fuel engines sooner than later "

There are ambiguous references to a solid fueled Prithvi. Can anyone confirm that it does exist, and has been tested. It's supposedly called the Prithvi-3.

Solid fuelled Prithvi exists. It's indeed the P3. It's been tested quite a few times although it is not known to have offically deployed. P2 on the other hand has been deployed and the recent test was a user trial from their stocks.

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 19 Jun 2010 01:10

Thanks Marut. That's really good to know. The armed forces must be happy, or at least not discontented with the liquid fueled Prithvi, that they are not clamoring for the solid fueled one- nothing in the easily accessed public sphere, anyway. It's possible that the solid Prithvi is meant for future deployment.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests