Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Jul 2010 23:34

suryag wrote:Did we miss this on the Astra

Astra faces glitch after meeting ‘basic objective'

Very confusing to a layman. What did the expect the missile to do after interception come back ??

I think that they were using the missile test for "multiple test" points. Perhaps the missile intercepted the first electronic target and then attempt was made to maneuver the missile to intercept the second electronic target where it failed. Note as the missile is just intercepting electronic targets it does not explode and keeps flying, so it can be used for multiple electronic targets

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Jul 2010 23:44

Kanson wrote:Ok, lets come to the agreement that MBDA offer on Maitri is a "me too" offer. ............ From the tech aspect in which way you are trying to say the deal stinks?

It looks like a Pig, walks like a Pig, squeals like a Pig and shits like a Pig. You want me to believe that it is a Duck, ok! There is no open source information as what is different in this deal from Barak. The deal stinks as we should have got all this tech with around US$ 3 billion dollar barak/spyder deals. So something is wrong in one or the other set of deals.

My take is that DRDO is being starved of money for R&D and is not being given "adequate money" to "absorb technolgy which may even be transferred. We need to concentrate on "One line" and put way more money in DRDO

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Jul 2010 23:46

suryag wrote:Did we miss this on the Astra

Astra faces glitch after meeting ‘basic objective'

S.K. Chaudhuri, Chairman of Astra's Flight Readiness Review Committee and Associate Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), one of the premier laboratories of DRDO told The Hindu that the missile's manoeuvrability went off as expected as it reached an electronically- simulated target in 15 seconds at an altitude of 12 km. “It didn't function as per our expectation after that,” he added. He said the launch happened smoothly up to the target interception stage. The scientists wanted to give one more command to the missile after it intercepted the target. However, one channel didn't function. Similar problem occurred during the night trial on Tuesday following a smooth launch. The missile's new on-board computer, navigation system and other data links performed well.
Very confusing to a layman. What did the expect the missile to do after interception come back ??

The objectivity of the test:
The objective of the mission was to prove high manoeuvrability and lateral acceleration at a speed of around 2.4 Mach.

At 12 km, even if we assume the speed of the missile as 4 Mach for 15 secs it reaches the distance of only 18 km. At Mach 3, the distance convered by the missile for 15 secs is around 13 km. And at 2.4 Mach for 15 secs the distance covered is around 11 km.

Agat seeker employed in Astra has a minimum range of 15 km. You missed highlighting one important word....

However, one channel didn't function.

We learned from previous article that Astra do a 110km range at an altitude of 15 km and 25 km range at sea level. The missile is tested at 12 km altitude.

Conclusion can be drawn based on these facts....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jul 2010 00:07

vic wrote:
Kanson wrote:Ok, lets come to the agreement that MBDA offer on Maitri is a "me too" offer. ............ From the tech aspect in which way you are trying to say the deal stinks?

It looks like a Pig, walks like a Pig, squeals like a Pig and shits like a Pig. You want me to believe that it is a Duck, ok! There is no open source information as what is different in this deal from Barak. The deal stinks as we should have got all this tech with around US$ 3 billion dollar barak/spyder deals. So something is wrong in one or the other set of deals.

My take is that DRDO is being starved of money for R&D and is not being given "adequate money" to "absorb technolgy which may even be transferred. We need to concentrate on "One line" and put way more money in DRDO

Sir, what you said can be correct as we are trying to preen the deal without any data points. And you can make many conclusions as as possible like you get from Kaledioscope. See one combination....

1. SPYDER/Derby tech was good to tackle the current threats and not good enough for furture threats. As Barak missile is also designed for ABM characteristics, which is more desirable for the future threats the current tech from SPYDER missile system was not pursued. Instead, effort, time and money is concentrated on the developing and acquiring tech from Barak missile system.

2. Though desirable to have the Barak sytem, considering the risk involved in the tech developement of the Barak programme, a parallel effort was taken to acquire tech for the SHOARD system. As this tech can meet future threats.

Second combination....

1. Due to downgrading the vendor status of IAI due to its corrupt practise, future looks not promising by pursuing a single vendor single tech option so a parallel programme needs to be devleoped as risk aversion and as fall back to the develeopment of Air defense systrem.

As i said before, every project, JV needs approval from various boards/dept that fuction within the ambit of DRDO and from MOD and also from GoI. So if something is approved it is a collective decision that is considered in the interest of nation.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 09 Jul 2010 01:04

My take is that DRDO is being starved of money for R&D and is not being given "adequate money" to "absorb technolgy which may even be transferred. We need to concentrate on "One line" and put way more money in DRDO

there used to be a time when inspirational scientists like Raja Ramanna,Abdul Kalam, Santhanam etc would inspire confidence in indegenous capabilities! But frankly friend, DRDO has broken too many hearts, including mine

Only the ballistic missile division seems to be doing anything at all

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 02:47

nukavarapu wrote:
Lets forget Akash, Shaurya, Arihant, Pinaka, Nag, Daksh, INSAS, MSMC, Radars, Sonars, Avionics, Arjun etc. ???

Whats worse than being less informed is being mis-informed!

Worse still, feeding trolls. It is punishable too.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2010 10:14

I think mmw doesn't have much range.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 18:04

nukavarapu wrote:
Can a missile with mmw seeker be fired without a mmw FCR? If yes, then how would the target designation work? Is mmw seeker capable of producing an image like SAR or ISAR for lock-on after launch?

TIA

NOT an expert, but since no one has responded (so far):

A missile with a "seeker" has to have the capability to "seek". To "seek" it must have the capability to independently "produce an image" of a quality that will provide a very high probability of a close to a 100% hit.

However, the FCR and the seeker play a different role, but it should be possible to "fire without a MMW FCR". The seeker would have a ridiculously small range though and should not be practical in most ground situations.

I recall a story where the Pakis would fire an AIM heat seeking missile at Indian posts in Siachen, where the Indian troops (at a greater height) had lit a fire to keep themselves warm. Do not know if it is true, but it did surface in the mid-late 90s. But, if it was true then the AIM was used as a surface-to-surface instrument without the benefit of a FCR and solely relying on the seeker. ??????????????

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jul 2010 18:25

nukavarapu wrote: Can a missile with mmw seeker be fired without a mmw FCR? If yes, then how would the target designation work? Is mmw seeker capable of producing an image like SAR or ISAR for lock-on after launch?

TIA

In addition to NRao ji explanation...
You mean Fire control radar? A fully autonomous seeker can be fired without FCR, so mmW seeker missile can be fired. mmW FCR acts just line any other FCR, if any. Just as imaging IR seeker(IIR), you can get imaging mmW seeker so it can provide SAR like image.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2010 18:49

Any range finder and target designating and tracking system will do for eg in most of the attack choppers a helmet mounted sight like top owl slaved to a FLIR can be used to fire a anti tank missile with a passive (IR/IIR) , same active laser or even a active seeker (MMW).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 18:51

It seems to me that it (image like SAR) is more an issue of signal acquisition (the more challenging of the two) and then processing it in real real-time to make a real difference.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2010 20:50

The reason to go for MMW is primarily because at that frequency the EM waves are able to penetrate low clouds , fog or mist so it has all weather capability which semi active laser/FLIR based target acquisition systems do not have. The issue is atmospheric attenuation increases with operating frequency hence they find use on attack choppers or even short range A2G munitions like Hellfire.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2010 20:59

My impression is the MMW seeker for anti-tank missile seeks out MMW signals emanating from the target. Apparently MMW signals emanate from engine electrical systems etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 21:29

nukavarapu,

Your original question was:

Can a missile with mmw seeker be fired without a mmw FCR? If yes, then how would the target designation work? Is mmw seeker capable of producing an image like SAR or ISAR for lock-on after launch?

With the emphasis on the second sentence.

The reason the Longbow has a FCR is just because the Hellfire has a very small (relative to the FCR) "seeker" - the FCR also hosting a "seeker". Both need to form an "image" to detect the "tank", just that the Hellfire's "image" will be meaningless beyond a certain distance - because the "seeker" is too small at that distance, thus a need for guidance. As far as I can tell the difference between a FCR and the missile "seeker" is the capability, and, the capability is based on the "size" (whatever that means WRT a MMW seeker).

BTW, check out the AGM-169 Joint Common Missile should replace the Hellfire and Maverick).

In MMW, no need to "paint". If the target stops emitting MMW, phoof, Hellfire freezes. Active radar homing needs the missile to emit and read the bounce of the emissions. Laser paints and the missile follows scatter. MMW relies on the fact that the target is already emitting MMW.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2010 21:46

MMW FCR is just like any other RF based FCR its just that operating frequency chosen suits the A2G operations as it provides superior range and angular resolution over Radars employing longer WVs, all weather capability(laser designators at disadvantage) and can engage MBTs operating in silent watch mode (this is where passive systems like FLIR/IRST are at disadvantage).

I do not think a MBT would emit any EM signal in MMW band (30~70 GhZ ? ) unless there is a dedicated RF power source to generate one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 23:02

Oooooopps.

I was wrong.

Page 2 :: The AGM-114 Hellfire Missile Family

The Longbow Hellfire (AGM-114L) is
also a precision-strike missile, but uses millimeter
wave (MMW) radar guidance instead
of Hellfire II’s SAL. It is the principal
antitank system for the AH-64D Apache
Longbow and uses the same antiarmor
warhead as Hellfire II. The MMW seeker
provides beyond-line-of-sight fire-andforget
capability as well as the ability to operate
in adverse weather and battlefield obscurants.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Jul 2010 06:05

nukavarapu wrote:
negi wrote:MMW FCR is just like any other RF based FCR its just that operating frequency chosen suits the A2G operations as it provides superior range and angular resolution over Radars employing longer WVs,
You mean shorter wavelengths? MMW is the longest possible wavelength in radio spectrum working in the 30 to 300 ghz spectrum. A wave with a wavelength longer than that will be far infrared light.

Nope most of the airborne FCR's operate in the vicinity of IEEE spectrum's 'X/Ku' band i.e. about 8-12 GhZ. The MMW starts around the 'V' band onwards i.e. 30/40GhZ (frequency is inversely proportional to wave length)

http://www.photonics.byu.edu/fwnomograph.phtml

Use above to convert between wavelength and frequency you would see only from about 35-40GHz onwards would the wavelength comes into the 'Millimeter' zone.

So most of the long range search radars use longer wavelengths L/S band followed by the airborne radars X band and then the on board seekers on AAM (Ku/K band) as resolution increases with operating frequency albit at the cost of 'range'.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Jul 2010 06:20

nukavarapu wrote: Whether MMW Nag would require a FCR?

Yes it would for even in LOBL mode of operation the weapons operator would prefer to have a control or option to prioritize his targets and then designate one of them to the missile for this to happen a FCR or some sort of search and track device (FLIR/IRST or LRF thermal imager combo ) is required.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2010 04:54

I think the MMW seeker has its own radar. All descriptions: US, German etc indicate MM seekers are fire and forget implying it has its own active radar. So that might account for the complexity and the delay.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 12 Jul 2010 21:45

PHOTO: Underwater Launch Canister For K-15 Sagarika Missile - LIVEFIST

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 Jul 2010 01:23

India to test Interceptor missile in August

“The Astra is meant for destroying aerial targets. It is a gradual process of proving its control and guidance systems. Before we integrate the missile with an aircraft, we should prove all this. [However], we have flown the missile integrated with an aircraft and it was done in Pune,” he said.

The missile was integrated with a Sukhoi-30 aircraft. But the tests on Tuesday and Wednesday took place from the ground at the ITR.
The Astra is about 3.6 metre long and weighs 160 kg.

This was buried in the story as well, so thought I'd highlight it out as someone had earlier asked if we knew which aircraft was Astra Integrated with!!!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 13 Jul 2010 10:21

X-post

India,US to ink huge military deal: report

US President Barack Obama's visit to New Delhi in November may secure $5 billion worth of arms sales to India, Russia's Vzglyad newspaper reported Monday. The deal, if signed during Obama's visit, would make the US replace Russia as India's biggest arms supplier, the paper said, adding that the deal would also help India curb China's rise.

India's shortlist includes Patriot defense systems, Boeing mid-air refueling tankers and certain types of howitzers, and the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion, the paper added. The report came a day after The Economic Times in New Delhi reported that talks are underway between Indian and US officials over a deal to sell 10 Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF).

India interested in Patriot defence systems??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2010 11:20

the missile compared to the person helpfully standing nearby seems to be around 1.m dia x 9m length?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jul 2010 13:12

Could posters do cross-check the veracity of facts and most importantly, sources, before they post and x-post anything and everything they come across on the internet?

A Chinese report referring to an obscure Russian newspaper not backed by any supporting news like DAC approval or CCS clearance or congressional request needs to be junked rather than posted and x-posted.

Since the days of Basil Zaharoff, companies have been peddling wares to all governments and forces. Governments and forces use the opportunity to understand developments and capabilities of concurrent systems.
So, if Raytheon makes a presentation of Patriot, or IAI makes a presentation of Arrow, or the Russians of Antei-2500 DOES NOT infer India plans to buy that system.

A more reliable approach to procurements is to follow DAC meetings chaired by Defence Minister and CCS meetings chaired by Prime Minister, instead of glossies and brochures or press releases from vendors saying “India is interested in …” or worse obscure news reports.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jul 2010 13:49

+1 ^^^
shukla ji, please do check the reliability of source before posting. some like strategypage can be safely ignored.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 13 Jul 2010 14:18

Rahul M wrote:+1 ^^^
shukla ji, please do check the reliability of source before posting. some like strategypage can be safely ignored.

Did sound like a bit of blah blah..thought someone on the forum would have heard about it if there was an iota of truth to it.. Thanks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2010 22:46

Tsarkarji, How many know who is Basil Zaharoff! I think other than you and Philip not many.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jul 2010 13:40

"BrahMos" supersonic missile hits target at range of 290 km

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Jul 2010 14:36

Ramana, I recommend anyone working in procurement to start by learning all about Basil Zaharoff. Sadly, we never learn from history.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 14 Jul 2010 16:56

A lot of people who grew up watching Discovery channel would know that name.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2010 17:19

ramana ji, assumption incorrect.

any mil enthusiast worth his salt knows that name.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 14 Jul 2010 23:51

tsarkar ji,
are you trying to say that many Basil zaharoff's are visiting India these days?

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Jul 2010 23:59

Isro has a very good record of launching multiple satellites. How far can this be used for MIRV warheads?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 16 Jul 2010 00:02

Launching MIRV requires much more precision than launching multiple satellites.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 16 Jul 2010 04:31

India in talks to buy Iron Dome, David's Sling

ndian Ministry of Defence to "Defense News": Procurement of David's Sling or the Iron Dome would be a "pleasure".
Ran Dagoni, Washington 14 Jul 10 13:19
"Defense News" reports that India is in talks to buy Israel's ground-based rocket and missile interceptor systems Iron Dome and David's Sling.

David's Sling, designed to intercept medium-range missiles (70-240 kilometers range), is being developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. and Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN). The system is also n the Ministry of Defense.

Indian Ministry of Defence sources told "Defense News" negotiations between the Israeli and Indian governments on a deal for David's Sling had been going on for more than six months. The sources added that Israel was open to sales of David's Sling, but that it would not transfer the system's technology as part of a deal.

The sources said that India was developing its own missile interception system for short and medium range missiles (50-80 kilometer range), known as the PAD. However, this system cannot intercept low-flying cruise missiles. This may be the reason why India is interested in the Israeli system.

An Indian Ministry of Defence official said that neither its aging Russian-built air defense systems nor the PAD system can serve as the country' sole line of defense against potential missile threats from Pakistan or China. He said that the procurement of David's Sling or the Iron Dome would be a "pleasure". Pleasure?? more like making MONEY!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 Jul 2010 04:53

Second LR-SAM Test Before November, IAF & Army Interested

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jul 2010 07:32

Iron Dome is owned and funded by Singapore. Thats why. India will have to ask Singapore for ToT.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 16 Jul 2010 07:38

^^

Comment like this coming from an oldie?

Let me repeat this again

The sources added that Israel was open to sales of David's Sling, but that it would not transfer the system's technology as part of a deal. [/b]

1) Get your facts straight! IRON DOME IS NOT owned by SINGAPORE. IT is ENTIRELY Israeli breed. Right from the Horses Mouth.
2) The Israelis are NOT going to offer TOT as INDIA has it's own AAD/PAD which is NOT capable of tackling Cruise Missile, something IRON DOME IS capable of doing, and by providing the required TOT, the Indian's WON'T be needing IRON DOME anymore, hence NO MORE MONEY for Israel
3) I'll gladly CHEW my words, if you post a proof stating that IRON DOME is FUNDED AND OWNED by Singapore!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jul 2010 09:01

Indian Ministry of Defence sources told "Defense News" negotiations between the Israeli and Indian governments on a deal for David's Sling had been going on for more than six months. The sources added that Israel was open to sales of David's Sling, but that it would not transfer the system's technology as part of a deal.

Because:

David's Sling, designed to intercept medium-range missiles (70-240 kilometers range), is being developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. and Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN). The system is also n the Ministry of Defense.

Israel does not seem to own the system in its entirety??????????????

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 16 Jul 2010 09:52

Craig Alpert wrote:and by providing the required TOT, the Indian's WON'T be needing IRON DOME anymore, hence NO MORE MONEY for Israel

there is little if anything transferrable in so called TOT most of the time. its a useless buzzword as there's no way to download the brains of foreign scientists and engineers who might have labored for years doing R&D on a specific item.

you are not going to replicate an F-22 or anything in it with or without TOT.

what's transferred is mostly manufacturing process with the machine tools shipped in from abroad. a good deal of what is called TOT is good old screw driver turning 101.