Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

[shiv]

Received this by email:

Beautiful!

[Arya Sumantra]

x-posted from Indian missiles and munitions forum

the overwhelming amts of MIRV warheads and robust delivery systems in the hands of P2 made ABM systems even at today's tech levels useless to even try out.
the gorgon and galosh interceptor grid was more like a H&D thing imo around moscow.

ABM only started getting mindshare when IRBMs proliferated in small numbers everywhere courtesy the lizard. thats a more manageable problem than deciding what to do about 300 topol's rising steely out of siberia, each tipped with MIRVs.

Use MIRVs to take on MIRVs.

Alternatives:

1) Laser paint each target MIRV warhead from ground based Laser designators. Put LGB kit improvised RPGs MIRVed on an interceptor and launch. Use gimbaled connection between rocket and grenade parts of RPG for vectoring instead of fins( from kit) because this is Space. The laser designators get instantaneous co-ordinates of target MIRV warheads from Radar of ABM system. Challenge: Not sure how laser designation from ground would work on cloudy days. Could increase the energy of the beam and everything should be fine as otherwise this issue affects directed energy weapons also.

Even IA could benefit from LGB kitted gimbaled-connection RPGs as a source of cheap precision and that too shoulder fired. The LGB kit will probably need to be miniaturized further for this one. Cheaper than missiles for short range precision use and in mountains.

OR

2a)Alternatively, radio guided WVR missiles(even smaller) could be MIRVed as final stage of interceptor. This is hybridization of “final stage rocket motor” and warheads into an Individually Propelled Mirv warheads concept. Again here too the propulsion would have to be gimbaled thrust instead of fins
The individually propelled mirv warheads should be explored even for offensive missiles not just interceptors as discussed here.

2b) IR based guidance would work well against “just re-entered” target MIRV warheads because just upon re-entry each of them would be glowing red hot. Hopefully not too late for interception. A mixed-mode guidance for interceptor warheads should be better perhaps. Such guidance is already under development elsewhere for AAMs. That would make interceptor multi-purpose for interception in space/within atmosphere.

Remarks:

1. Since target MIRVs and interceptor MIRVs are not paired the interceptor(s) launched has to have more warheads than targets to make sure none of target MIRVs is left out or otherwise there has to be a sophisticated pairing algorithm matching each target with each interceptor warhead. Even if some mirvs escape still the interception would be partially effective especially against nuke ones.

2. Technically interceptor’s “mirv” warheads can’t be called mirv as they do not re-enter atmosphere. So using it only for ease of explanation.

JMT

[Austin]

The over simplistic way that many tend to explain the ABM and its great value against BM reminds me of Regan Era Star Wars ( Peace Shield ) commercial , Daddy is smart .

The Star Wars eventually turned out to be a hot gas

[Austin]

Missile Defence Countermeasures Primer

[Arya Sumantra]

The over simplistic way that many tend to explain the ABM and its great value against BM reminds me of Regan Era Star Wars ( Peace Shield ) commercial , Daddy is smart .

The Star Wars eventually turned out to be a hot gas

When you are a Researcher, 9 out of 10 new things you try fail but that 1 thing you succeed at makes you a leader. When you are a follower nation, everything you develop works(whenever you acquire the capability) because you are following the successes of the Researcher.

There is NO reason for a follower to act condescending about failures of the researcher. The reasons for failure often become apparent in hindsight which one could not predict in his vision earlier.

Are not directed energy weapons an outcome of some of the Star Wars initiatives?

PS: Some sceptical opinions about ABM makes one wonder what people would have thought about early computers(their capability vs size).

[Austin]

Directed Energy Weapons has been the area of interest much before star wars the Soviets reportedly started their DEW research way back in 1960 ofcourse the US PR bandwagon on Star Wars would make us believe that Star Wars was the geneses of DEW much like they made people believe then that Star War was end of all wars.

[Arya Sumantra]

Missile Defence Countermeasures Primer

In that video, there are two countermeasures examples provided one is balloon and other is bomblets. Regarding the latter there is a limit as to how small the individual warhead is made in aggressor missile. You don’t use an ICBM to deliver grenade sized warheads. Also there is a limit to their spread as they are on a trajectory to a specific target and have to meet certain CEP too.

And the limitation cited for interceptor applies to a single hit to kill type interceptor. But if the interceptor has a payload of guided fragments then limitations are largely overcome. In addition to examples of fragmented interceptor payload mentioned in my earlier post, here is another one perhaps even more effective



When used as a payload of interceptor, the cluster bomb, modified for space use, with its 40-50 homing skeets in a single bomb can take on numerous MIRVs(as well as decoys) of an incoming ICBM. If additional interceptors are launched you get even more skeets to take out even more MIRVs. Instead of interceptor itself doing a hit-to-kill, let the individual skeets do a hit-to-kill on incoming MIRVs.

Guided fragments to take on fragments seems a pretty viable concept for an ABM to take on MIRV.

Disclaimer: Not rooting for an ABM-centric policy here, just suggesting that ABM can be more effective.

[Austin]

Guided fragments to take on fragments seems a pretty viable concept for an ABM to take on MIRV.

Arya Sumantra the concept of using many guided fragements to take out MIRV or a single warhead with multiple decoys has been at forefront of ABM research in US , they called that Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV)

The current administration and defence secretary Robert Gates terminated the MKV along with other Missile Defence Program because of significant technical challenges.

Here is one MKV video demonstrating how that is suppose to work.

[JimmyJ]

Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview

Signed in May 1972, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty prohibited the deployment of ABM systems for the defense of the nations’ entire territory. It permitted each side to deploy limited ABM systems at two locations, one centered on the nation’s capital and one at a location around ICBM silo launchers. When it became clear that neither nation would complete a second site, the two sides agreed in a 1974 Protocol that each would have only one ABM site, located either at the nation’s capital or around an
ICBM deployment area.

Each ABM site could contain no more than 100 ABM launchers and 100 ABM interceptor missiles. The Treaty also specified that in the future any radars that provided early warning of strategic ballistic missile attack had to be located on the
periphery of the national territory and oriented outward.

The Treaty banned the development, testing, and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based ABM systems and ABM system components (these included interceptor missiles, launchers, and radars or other sensors that can substitute for radars).

The Treaty placed no restrictions on the development, testing, or deployment of defenses against shorter range missiles.

Hope the link and the information is good.

[JimmyJ]

A newbie question

When an intense dog fight is going on between two fighters will SAMs play any role to take out the enemy fighter or do they keep shut to prevent friendy?

[Austin]

A newbie question

When an intense dog fight is going on between two fighters will SAMs play any role to take out the enemy fighter or do they keep shut to prevent friendy?

SAM Batteries like Fighter aircraft will have IFF to identify the hostile aircraft , track and lock it , so they can engage an enemy aircraft even if its dog fighting , but chances are given few secs or max minute we might have an outcome of the dogfight.

[Carl_T]

Do planes ever fall off aircraft carriers?

[Prasad]

Do planes ever fall off aircraft carriers?

While landing they can -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQc557C-j-8

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkg0Lxp8k6E

[Prasad]

Speaking of Mig 29s, here is a nice video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L32c0cpLX64

@4.15 theres a sweeet section of the Mig flying above clouds with the sun in the background.

[shiv]

Do planes ever fall off aircraft carriers?

1) They can fail to take off and go under the carrier
2) They can be pushed off - as has been done to damaged aircraft on the deck at wartime.

I had some videos on my Geocities site - but Geocities is dead. I should consider putting those videos on YouTube. Need to look at my archives.

[shiv]

A newbie question

When an intense dog fight is going on between two fighters will SAMs play any role to take out the enemy fighter or do they keep shut to prevent friendy?

This is where aircraft recognition comes in handy. Even guns can take pot shots at the adversary. I am not at all sure if IFF is a feature that is commonly incorporated into SAM defences.

[Gaur]

This is interesting. I thought it is still very risky to fire SAM at enemy aircraft when a friendly fighter is engaged in dogfight with it. IMO, even with IFF, most (if not all) SAM seekers are not yet sophisticated enough to avoid mistakes (otherwise decoys would have been useless). So, there is a danger that the friendly aircraft would act as a decoy for the enemy fighter. Also, if the missile is equipped with proximity fuse, the danger is even more.
I know that in real life dogfights, the aircrafts do not fly as close as the Hollywood films like TOP GUN would have us believe. Yet, there still exists some danger.
Again, all this is conjecture from my part. So, it may be that I am completely wrong.

[neerajb]

This is interesting. I thought it is still very risky to fire SAM at enemy aircraft when a friendly fighter is engaged in dogfight with it. IMO, even with IFF, most (if not all) SAM seekers are not yet sophisticated enough to avoid mistakes (otherwise decoys would have been useless). So, there is a danger that the friendly aircraft would act as a decoy for the enemy fighter. Also, if the missile is equipped with proximity fuse, the danger is even more.

IMO SAMs are not used to target an aircraft engaged in a dogfight. Sensor malfunctions aside, What if the friendly aircraft comes in between the SAM and the target at the last moment (Bolloywood ishtyle ). Proximity fuse is armed a few seconds after launch to avoid premature detonation, So there is a real possibility of friendly fire. Active missiles further complicate engagement because it is totally upto the missile's computer to decide which one is target after launch.

I am not at all sure if IFF is a feature that is commonly incorporated into SAM defences.

IFF is a bare necessity to any air-defence system. Even MANPADS like Stinger employs IFF.

Cheers....

[JimmyJ]

IMO SAMs are not used to target an aircraft engaged in a dogfight. Sensor malfunctions aside, What if the friendly aircraft comes in between the SAM and the target at the last moment (Bolloywood ishtyle ). Proximity fuse is armed a few seconds after launch to avoid premature detonation, So there is a real possibility of friendly fire. Active missiles further complicate engagement because it is totally upto the missile's computer to decide which one is target after launch.

So is a dig fight happening at that close levels for such a mistake to occur?

Also if we have aggressor aircrafts over our territory then will the defender aircrafts engage only after the SAMs failed?

[Shankar]

downing of aircraft by friendly missile fire is actually quite common -it happened even in gulf wars (ground to air)quite a few times and has happened in air to air combat also
During war the friendly aircraft are given pre designated safe corridors to fly in and out of air base rest of air space is kind of open kill zone

[vasu_ray]

with the goal of making gliders loiter at 10-15km altitude, can a transport plane be used to haul a glider to that height and then its flight is sustained by smaller engines so the transport could be relieved

the glider has a heavy payload of 5-10tons so it cannot climb on its own

after the loitering time period is over which could be few days the glider can then glide back for landing at a airbase like a UAV

gliders - converted canberras with low consumption engines and aerial refueling capability, the sustaining thrust is alternated between the 2 engines
transport - AN-32/C-130

[Shankar]

even to loiter the glider will use up lot of power at 15 ton weight whcih means lot of fiel which means even more gross weight so the deliverable payload is little add to that the complication of hauling up that load by a transporter specially deigned to that altitude of 50000 ft or so

The whole proposition may not stand the test of realistic evaluation

[neerajb]

Military Gliders were used extensively in WWII.

Cheers....

[Arya Sumantra]

x-posted from Indian Naval Discussion thread

space could also be a constraint. with 30knots considered adequate, the competition to fit in bigger airwing, hangers, POL and munitions bunkers would be there.

A carrier is big because an aircraft itself is big in size. But if one thinks in terms of carrying 2 dozen-3 dozen of ucaved Rustom drones with folding wings then even a warship size with a ski jump is good enough. Somehow nobody talks about a dron_e carrier ! D_rones can be packed with enough AI that in case of a jam it aborts and returns in auto-pilot mode to land back on its carrier.

------

Here's what Japanese had created way back in WW2.



But they were ahead of their time. They used actual manned aircrafts. So effectiveness went down. Imagine what would they achieve with a bredator sized drone with folding-wings(2-3 dozens in number) and actual runway with arrestor hooks like the carriers and conning tower moved to a side on a wider flatter sub and an internal lift to bring drones up to the conning tower which opens to the deck.

Far more survivable against dragon's AShBMs and n-powered sub means even longer range. Smaller crew means lesser cost of maintaining and operating it. This is the future of (survivable) carriers imho.



Note: Before the conservative oldies and strictly-defence-journal-reports-based-innovation-folks pounce, this is not science-fiction, it is WW2 history. I only replaced with modern elements in the original Japanese concept from WW2.

JMT

[JimmyJ]

Thanks a lot to you all for the reply on the last question. I got one more newbie question at the moment.


Why is it that air force still have dedicated air tankers, especially where the number of dedicated air tankers is small?

Wouldn't it be better to integrate the roles of an Air tanker and AEW/AWACS?

Advantages I think are more platform availability and better mutil role capability especially in case of a conflict.

[Shankar]

"Military Gliders were used extensively in WWII"
yes they were like in operation market garden with disastrous results and those were the days before radar controlled guns and surface to air missiles and shoulder fired missiles

[Shankar]

"Wouldn't it be better to integrate the roles of an Air tanker and AEW/AWACS?"

there is first of all no space inside an AWAC to hold fuel tanks and also there flight profiles are different awacs may follow a strike formation or move away from a hostile situation or fly parallel to a battle front etc tec -tankers normally hold a relatively stationary position

[vasu_ray]

"Military Gliders were used extensively in WWII"
yes they were like in operation market garden with disastrous results and those were the days before radar controlled guns and surface to air missiles and shoulder fired missiles

the loitering gliders are for long duration station keeping around Indian cities probably for detecting VLO targets and take them down with air-to-air missiles, or for defending aganist BMs; they will not go into enemy airspace

[Shankar]

UCAV s are beter option

[vasu_ray]

whats so tough about converting existing airframes such as the Mig-21 or the Canberra into remotely piloted vehicles? they may not be safe for a human pilot or optimized for their new roles, however large residual fleets can be used

[neerajb]

In the context of loitering, low aspect delta wings or bombers optimised for high speeds are the last things that comes into mind. A U2 or solar powered pathfinder type aircraft is more suitable for loitering purposes. Also the range of multi-engined aircrafts actually goes down with all engines not running.

Cheers....

[Carl_T]

EDIT: wrong post

[neerajb]

Actually I got his point but the choice of the platform is improper. If you want an efficient platform for loitering then definitely you would like to have a fuselage with high aspect ratio wings like what gliders have.

Cheers....

[K_Rohit]

Newbie question-

I have always seen air to air missiles of the IAF painted in white, both the training rounds (with the black stripes) and others. I have yet to see a picture of Tipnis grey air to air missiles...why?

Do we actually carry bright white air-to-air missiles? Any pointers to pictures with low viz painted missiles?

[shiv]

whats so tough about converting existing airframes such as the Mig-21 or the Canberra into remotely piloted vehicles? they may not be safe for a human pilot or optimized for their new roles, however large residual fleets can be used

What roles do you envisage? I think both those aircraft were designed fro a particular role. The MiG 21 is a sharp dart and the Canberra is a largish "light bomber"

The Canberra strikes me as a possible candidate for an RPV. It certainly looks prettier than our own "Rustam" MALE/HALE . A Canberra based UCAV would probably do OK - but air defences nowadays are deadly and I guess that is why UAVs and UCAvs are being made stealthy. I don't think the Canberra makes the cut in that dept.

I wonder if the biggest hurdle to trying out old airframes with some life left as test platforms for UAVs and UCAVs may be a mental block. The Aeronautical development agencies probably do not even know which airframes are lying with the Air Force with little chance of usage and some airframe hours left.

However if spares are a problem then it may be easier to develop a new one. I suspect that some Canberra systems like pumps and motors and dynamos etc may be really old stuff from the "Valve radio" era. Manufacturing those to keep the a.c flying may be a needless financial and time hurdle. I don;t know - but the idea seems like a good one.

[Shankar]

The external surfaces of all Navy guided missiles, except radome and antenna surfaces, are painted white. The color white has no identification color-coding significance when used on guided missiles. There are three significant color codes used on guided missiles and their components—yellow, brown, and blue. These color codes indicate the explosive hazard in the missile component. If components are painted blue on a practice missile and have a yellow or brown band painted on them, the component has an explosive component that doesn't have a comparable part in a service missile.

Each component of the missile, besides being color coded, is identifiable by lettering stenciled on the exterior surface of the component. The lettering on a component gives information such as the Mark and Mod, type and weight of explosive filler, loading activity symbol and date of loading, temperature range restrictions, and unit serial number.

The white color of missiles is simply to make the subsequent color coding easily recognizable

[vasu_ray]

What roles do you envisage? I think both those aircraft were designed fro a particular role. The MiG 21 is a sharp dart and the Canberra is a largish "light bomber"

roles wise Mig-21 can be used as a SEAD escort/decoy which is armed and should a SAM threat be detected for manned aircraft it can be sacrificed

it can foray into enemy airspace with ELINT equipment to help boost the Tarang's spectrum of ECM defense

it can be a lead package in a SEAD mission mopping up threatening radars with HARMs

it can open up the combat maneuvering envelop in UCAV mode pretty fast than a brand new platform for example Tejas testing to IOC is 10 years

Canberra can be used for CAP over Indian cities for VLO targets, it can be sluggish since it will not encounter enemy aircraft given IAF's air superiority and it will not go into enemy airpsace

with aerial refuelling it can stay on station for longer time, given its payload it can host airborne BMD interceptors (for tactical BMs) if developed, for such a niche role there is no need for new generation planes

regarding refurbishment they can use newer materials such as composites, new avionics, engines and actuators as needed; since it has an established flight profile, the protracted testing for UCAV mode is cut down

your own point about using proven airframes for testing new engines

hopefully Chitradurga has answers

[shiv]

roles wise Mig-21 can be used as a SEAD escort/decoy which is armed and should a SAM threat be detected for manned aircraft it can be sacrificed

it can foray into enemy airspace with ELINT equipment to help boost the Tarang's spectrum of ECM defense

it can be a lead package in a SEAD mission mopping up threatening radars with HARMs

it can open up the combat maneuvering envelop in UCAV mode pretty fast than a brand new platform for example Tejas testing to IOC is 10 years

I don't have enough technical knowledge to agree or disagree with this.

Packing a MiG 21 with electronics while modifying it and manufacturing new composites etc sound like a bad idea to me. My personal view is that an entirely new airframe should be used - perhaps even the LCA itself.

The MiG 21 is a lightly armed. low payload, low endurance Mach 2 capable point defence fighter designed for the, weights, aerodynamic knowledge and combat requirements of 1960s air defence. Adapting it to a role 50 plus years later may be possible but sounds like a compromise within a compromise. Just my view.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "open up combat maneuvering envelope in UCAV mode". Can you explain? What maneuvering envelope would be opened up? I would like to know more about UCAV combat maneuvering as a general point of information if you are able to throw light on it.

[vasu_ray]

Assuming a lookup table needs to be built which serves as the basis for a digital FBW system

since the Mig-21's flight profile is well known, the incremental approach taken with a new platform such as measuring the impact of say a 1 degree shift in left flap can be avoided instead a 5 degree change can be tested

Between the two extremes of executing a maximum number of flight tests and outright extrapolation using very few flight tests, a squadron of Mig-21s in service can be instrumented and fast tracked in building the input-response database

since the FBW is already developed with the Tejas program, a variant for the Mig-21 can easily be developed

with the digital autopilot ready, by using datalinks the Mig-21 can be made into a RPV; the experience might be similar to night flying using only instruments with the ground based pilot only doing maneuvers and not correcting each and every shift of the plane using the stick, its the job of the autopilot

then comes automation of tasks such as take-off;landing;aerial refueling;formation flying;chaff & flare dispensing;TCAS; way point navigation

with the pilot removed from the cockpit, flight envelope can be expanded to higher-g maneuvers which would be similar to testing a new platform

now AI based concepts can be evaluated using a number of Mig-21s in UCAV mode with the benefit of a compressed timeframe

training the Samyukta system on the datalinks to proof them

using TERCOM integraton it can do low pass bombing of terror camps in lieu of predators

it can imitate those famed terminal S maneuvers releasing ground munitions in the last turn and still fly back to be rearmed; its Mach 2 speed helps

fly in the Himalayan mountains given the Cartosat built digital elevation maps attacking the Chinese front lines taking advantage of the terrain

retired IAF pilots can man these ground consoles

[shiv]

Assuming a lookup table needs to be built which serves as the basis for a digital FBW system

since the Mig-21's flight profile is well known, the incremental approach taken with a new platform such as measuring the impact of say a 1 degree shift in left flap can be avoided instead a 5 degree change can be tested

Between the two extremes of executing a maximum number of flight tests and outright extrapolation using very few flight tests, a squadron of Mig-21s in service can be instrumented and fast tracked in building the input-response database

since the FBW is already developed with the Tejas program, a variant for the Mig-21 can easily be developed

The problem as I see it is, if one plane that has been "fast tracked" crashes, how do we depend on a fleet of aircraft that is undergoing attrition from unknown causes. Assume a "fast tracked" MiG 21 UCAV is integrated as you say. If all works well - that is fine. What if one crashes. Do we then say "That was a random event. It can't have anything to do with our fast tracking it. We still have a reliable system"

Secondly Terrorist camps are passe. We are talking China and the Indian Ocean. MiG 21s with their restricted endurance in a UCAV attack role there? No siree. Not convincing.

Third point. One MiG 21 UCAV would be more expensive than one 350 km Prithvi or equivalent. 20 Prithvis could to the job of 5 MiG 21 UCAVs with fewer people needed to maintain and service. And most of the testing has already been done. No need for fast tracking and making new composites and actuators. And no airbases or jet fuel would be needed.

The MiG 21 is a bad choice here.