Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 09 Jun 2017 21:12

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in knowing how are the hellfire and the spike LR achieving the claimed 8 km range during the day time

Well, their brochures state this. And because their brochures are more glossy, you are supposed to believe them.

GopiD · Post by **GopiD** » 09 Jun 2017 21:39

I have a noob question. With all the long-range missiles we test and that falls into the sea, do we recover them for study and/or not letting other prying eyes have a look at our tech? If not, what is stopping other countries like China/pak to retrieve one of our missiles after we have cleared the testing area in sea. If they are monitoring the missiles tests with their offshore and onshore radars, they should have a decent idea of where the missile has fallen. Is this a valid question?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2017 22:08

My highlights and comments.

JTull wrote:Prospina trials to be held at Jaisalmer firing range

Prospina missile earlier known as Nag is all set for trials at the Chandan Field Firing Range in Jaisalmere. While the much delayed the Gen-3 Fire and Forget Anti-Tank Guided Missile had successful night trials at a range of four km earlier last year, the infra-red seekers had a problem in differentiating the target from the surroundings in hot desert conditions during the day time.

As per the official sources, the missile is now being tested for a reduced range of 3-3.2km during the day time from the earlier target of 4km for both day and night.

{So Nag was good for 4km at night/cold climate trials. Current tests are for reduced range as the missile loses energy trying to discern the target in hot weather. Not reduction is 0.8 to 1.0 km}

Officials shared that the trials for this much awaited missile shall be conducted in the second week of June for testing the performance of Prospina with improved Imaging Infra Red Seekers (which guide the missile to its target after launch) for extreme hot weather in June.

{Prospina is a new missile with improved seeker. Not the same old Nag. Sorry for the unintended pun.}

Nag a baby of Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) of DRDO was earlier a part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme of the DRDO launched in 1980s.

Success evaded DRDO for a long time in case of Project Nag, now renamed and launched as Prospina taking this missile out of the cluster of missiles under Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme of (IGMDP) of India. A couple of months after the past user trials failed, the government had to give its nod for procuring second generation 10,000 Russian Konkurs-M, Anti Tank Guided Missiles for Indian Armys infantry formations.

{Does the Konkurs-M have the hot weather target discrimination at 4 km requirement?}

Prospina successfully hit the target four kilometers away during a night trial at Mahajan Field Firing' Range in Bikaner last year validating the enhanced range of its Imaging Infra Red seeker.

However, subsequently the DRDO officials revealed that the missile would now be tested and handed over to Army with a reduced range of 3.2 km or so especially during the peak day hours in the first phase.

The missile saw roadblocks since its earlier Imaging Infra Red Seekers were not able to differentiate between the target and surroundings in hot desert temperatures with both reaching the same temperature.

Highly sensitive detectors have been placed on missile tip for sensing heat or infra red signals in three different thermal scenarios including that of a thermal differential within the target, between the target and the background and surrounding temperature variation.

{This is what makes the Prospina different in its target discrimination. How do they do this? Is it digital signal processing with onboard computer chip?}

Prospina shall be mounted and transported on a Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle. Grand plans as per the officials are underway to confer this all weather missile with an unmatched competence of detecting and hitting the targets with a very Low Thermal Contrast vis a vis surroundings to the tune of a mere 0.2 degree Celsius.

{That means Pakis are toast even if they switch off the engine and hide behind/ under the sand dunes!!!}

This job of developing High Resolution Imaging Infra Red seekers as per the demand projected by the Indian Army was entrusted to Research Centre Imarat (RCI), a Hyderabad based DRDO lab.

I am looking forward to hearing about these trials.

Its not your grandfather's' Nag!!!! Its a thoroughbred.

This is great new stuff.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 09 Jun 2017 22:46

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in knowing how are the hellfire and the spike LR achieving the claimed 8 km range during the day time

AFAIK Hellfire uses a Semi-Active Laser guidance and the L variant uses MMW radio waves for guidance. No Hellfire variant has ever used IIR guidance.

Spike uses IIR for guidance. Not sure if they were tested by IA as stringently as Prospina/Nag are put through.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 09 Jun 2017 23:21

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in knowing how are the hellfire and the spike LR achieving the claimed 8 km range during the day time

Can they? Has there been any trials? Free pass to imported maal.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 10 Jun 2017 00:59

All our weapon systems are tested under varied temperatures pressure environments.
Tanks and planes are cold soaked in freezing mountain winters to see how they perform. Even guns are tested in dry/ wet/ sandy/ hot/ humid etc conditions and many systems fail these tests.

So when hardy tanks, trucks, rifles, sensors, artillery, planes have to pass this tough regimen and often fail, how is it assumed that testing missiles from one coastal location will validate & benchmark their performance when deployed from any of our disparate habitats.

When Brahmos, Prithvi, Agni, Akash & other missiles will be deployed in war, how is it known that overnight cold, heavy moisture, fog, heat, air pressure differences will not impact the missiles.

Can anyone enlighten me please

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2017 01:11

They would be designed to a requirements spec which lays down the temperature and environments to be met. then the extremes are validated.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2017 06:42

HELINA= HELIcopter (launched) NAg
NAMICA = NAg MIssile CArrier

PROSPINA= PROSPI(wtf)+ NAg

Proposed? Prospective? Prosperous?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2017 07:00

Cross post

Tanks are made primarily of metal and in the intense desert heat - the turrets of airconditioned tanks should show up with more contrast (slightly cooler) than the surrounding desert in an infra-red scanner/seeker no? The turret outside temperature would be reduced (marginally) as the A/C inside directs the heat away.

I wonder if such a comparison has been made? This is not an argument for or against anything - just a technical doubt.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Jun 2017 07:32

Shiv, good point, another question on the same lines would be, what would be the effect other the so called infrared camaflage on the targeting sensors ability to identify the target tank.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Jun 2017 07:36

Ra nana, knkurs is a wire guided missile, so as long as the shooter is able to discriminate the target from surrounding environment it should hit the target.

Though no clue if the firing post is capable of such discrimination.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2017 07:51

Pratyush wrote:Shiv, good point, another question on the same lines would be, what would be the effect other the so called infrared camaflage on the targeting sensors ability to identify the target tank.

As far as I can tell - Infra Red camouflage is better in cold environments where a hot engine/engine exhaust is shielded. But when the entire environment is very hot - blanketing an already hot object would only make it appear cooler

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2017 07:56

Pratyush wrote:Ra nana, knkurs is a wire guided missile, so as long as the shooter is able to discriminate the target from surrounding environment it should hit the target.

Though no clue if the firing post is capable of such discrimination.

So the decision was to get retro version of ATGM

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Jun 2017 09:38

i would imagine the tank exterior will be warmer not cooler than the surrounding. to the best of my knowledge, the tank a/c just manages to prevent the occupants and electronics from frying ( not like the driver is wearing a jacket inside to beat the cold). the exhaust etc is also spewing smoke ( heat).. i would imagine the metal including the wheels, engine area, barrel etc would contribute to make the tank hotter than the surroundings.. but i think what is important is the temperature differential between tank/surrounding ( irrespective of wether tank is warmer or cooler than the surroundings). I dont know what is the case if tank is covered with reactive armour?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Jun 2017 09:41

Pratyush...what is firing post? firing post is a human being who is visually or through some optical device seeing the target. in a desert enviornment a tank should be easy to spot.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Jun 2017 09:47

manjgu wrote:Pratyush...what is firing post? firing post is a human being who is visually or through some optical device seeing the target. in a desert enviornment a tank should be easy to spot.

The tripod thingies on which the missile is placed before firing.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Jun 2017 09:53

a wire guided missile is tracked optically ( i mean thru eyes or a optical sensor)... i didnt understand what has tripod got to do with it? what has tripod got to do with target discrimination? not clear...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2017 09:54

manjgu wrote:i would imagine the tank exterior will be warmer not cooler than the surrounding. to the best of my knowledge, the tank a/c just manages to prevent the occupants and electronics from frying ( not like the driver is wearing a jacket inside to beat the cold). the exhaust etc is also spewing smoke ( heat).. i would imagine the metal including the wheels, engine area, barrel etc would contribute to make the tank hotter than the surroundings.. but i think what is important is the temperature differential between tank/surrounding ( irrespective of wether tank is warmer or cooler than the surroundings). I dont know what is the case if tank is covered with reactive armour?

The AC exhausts will be hot like the tank exhaust. But the outside of the turret will not get any warmer. At best its temperature will remain the same. But more likely - since the hatch is relatively thin - the hatch will be cooled from the inside and be seen as a cold spot, if not the entire turret itself. The "top attack" tactic is dependent of the armour on top being thinner. Only thing is that the missile aimer on the ground may not see the top of the tank. But from a helicopter it should be visible.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Jun 2017 09:58

The sensors through which the operators sees the target and guides the missile. Which when mounted on a tripod makes the firing post.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Jun 2017 10:09

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/cartemp/index.htm to get some idea... the cars were stationary ... for a moving tank.. ( plus engine heating..a/c heating minus inside airconditioning).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2017 10:35

Those tests were at a cool 26 deg C. Need to test in desert with ambient of 55 deg C

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Jun 2017 12:30

In June 2016, the Director General of DRDO, S. Christopher said that “ if the environment is cool and even if the differential temperature is just two degree, it can identify the target. But if the tank is left for hours in summer (sun), that is what we did during the recent trial, the temperature difference between the tank and the environment is negligible and that is the time we cannot meet the targeted four km range. So we have requested the defence minister that as a first phase the missile's range be slightly reduced, that too only when used in the middle of the day i.e., between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. So in phase one, we will work on a slightly reduced range [only 3.2 Kms instead of 4 Kms] and in the next phase we will improve the product so as to meet all the targets”.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 10 Jun 2017 15:18

^^
And that's precisely how iterative development happens. And if the IA has any sense, they will induct this world-class missile ASAP. Then induct Mark 2 when it arrives.

But oh no, what will happen to the Spike & Javelin shiny brochures then?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 10 Jun 2017 15:21

I think DRDO went with an IIR seeker because the initial range requirement for Nag was 4 Km. Then, when Helina was conceptualized, they understood the need for a 7 Km+ range, which isn't possible in desert heat for a passive IIR seeker. So, the mmw seeker was developed.

The fact that we have a very good IIR seeker is great because all ManPat ATGMs like Spike & Javelin use IIR seekers

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 19:00

ramana wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Ra nana, knkurs is a wire guided missile, so as long as the shooter is able to discriminate the target from surrounding environment it should hit the target. Though no clue if the firing post is capable of such discrimination.
So the decision was to get retro version of ATGM

If after so many years of NAG under development and repeated discussion on BRF about the same, posters still don't know what NAG is supposed to do and what role Konkur-M or MILAN/MILAN-2 ATGM are supposed to play, then the joke is on BRF and BRFites.

But does not prevent people from posting holier-than-thou posts and pretend to be uber patriots.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 19:03

Prem Kumar wrote:^^
And that's precisely how iterative development happens. And if the IA has any sense, they will induct this world-class missile ASAP. Then induct Mark 2 when it arrives. But oh no, what will happen to the Spike & Javelin shiny brochures then?

Spike or Javelin will be ordered irrespective of success or failure of NAG. I know this will burst your brochure argument but reality is often quite different from make-believe world of BRF uber patriots.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jun 2017 19:31

Not to forget that IA will keep a huge stock of missiles to be used against bunkers and other targets, not just anti-tank. The recent fire assaults we saw on video appeared to show at least one such missile entering the gun slit of a shitistan bunker

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Jun 2017 19:38

The delay in induction of Nag is not primarily because of the missile, Its mainly due to Namica. You can see the no of design changes namica has gone through is still in development.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 19:41

shiv wrote:Not to forget that IA will keep a huge stock of missiles to be used against bunkers and other targets, not just anti-tank. The recent fire assaults we saw on video appeared to show at least one such missile entering the gun slit of a shitistan bunker

Shiv - my grouse is still more fundamental. You're talking about operational aspects which 9/10 people on BRF don't understand, nor want to understand.

So, IA used ATGM in fire-assault against Pakees on LOC. Hmmm...now which missile could that be? Could be Milan/Milan-2T...why you ask? Because Indian Infantry uses these missiles in man-portable ATGM role. Could these be Konkur-M? Hmmm....unlikely because we use Konkurs on our BMP-2 and not the infantry. Could be Kornet? Likely. We got a few of them.

So, where does NAG come into picture? Well, it is in a class of its own. No comparable missile in IA inventory. But what about them Yahoodi or Amrikhan missiles? The ones which work only in brochures? Well, these are for replacing the Milan/Milan-2T....And tomorrow, will be used against Pakees on LOC as well. So, what does NAG do? Naagin dance in general sahab's son's wedding? No, no...it will be used to take out Pakee Khalids and Zaraars in the plain.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 19:43

Kakarat wrote:The delay in induction of Nag is not primarily because of the missile, Its mainly due to Namica. You can see the no of design changes namica has gone through is still in development.

Boss, even the DRDO now accepts that there was an issue with the NAG seeker. And from what I understand, first lot of NAG will come with 3.2 km range in peak temperature 'limitation' as the good DG of DRDO has said. New seekers has done well in night firing. It will do well in peak temperature scenario and hopefully, we'll see the induction sometime soon. So, lets not tilt at the windmill.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2017 19:57

While laser guided atgm can hit anything its pointed to..how does a fnf atgm like javelin or nag work...does the seeker look down and do pattern matching on tanks and other things or it has a laser seeker?

I mean if its truly fnf how we can make it hit a particular bunker among many or even recognize a bunker which can come in lot of shapes vs a tank or ifv

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Jun 2017 20:13

rohitvats wrote:
Kakarat wrote:The delay in induction of Nag is not primarily because of the missile, Its mainly due to Namica. You can see the no of design changes namica has gone through is still in development.
Boss, even the DRDO now accepts that there was an issue with the NAG seeker. And from what I understand, first lot of NAG will come with 3.2 km range in peak temperature 'limitation' as the good DG of DRDO has said. New seekers has done well in night firing. It will do well in peak temperature scenario and hopefully, we'll see the induction sometime soon. So, lets not tilt at the windmill.

I have worked with the Namica team for couple of months about 5 years ago and interacted with those who use to go for trials & came to know of the Issues with namica. The user was comfortable with the limitations of the missile then and issues with namica was worse comparatively. I dont wish to go into details, you can see how the design of namica has changed over time.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Jun 2017 20:53

rohitvats wrote:
Spike or Javelin will be ordered irrespective of success or failure of NAG. I know this will burst your brochure argument but reality is often quite different from make-believe world of BRF uber patriots.

That is the problem that people are not prepare to accept. That the IA will import regard less of the reality of domestic product. And if any domestic product is acquired. It will be presente as a huge favour to the domestic weapon that inspire of an available imported option the IA decided to buy domestic. And how we all should be happy about it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 21:02

Kakarat wrote:I have worked with the Namica team for couple of months about 5 years ago and interacted with those who use to go for trials & came to know of the Issues with namica. The user was comfortable with the limitations of the missile then and issues with namica was worse comparatively. I dont wish to go into details, you can see how the design of namica has changed over time.

I don't doubt your argument. Except for the fact that all the trials of missile are from seeker/range perspective. The redesign of the NAMICA is literally a side-show which has come to fore only once publicly.

Also, if the user was OK with limited range earlier - and this reminds me of articles from 2012 when IA gave go-ahead for 2 km range and we heard about 13 NAMICA+ 443 missiles - why are we having repeated tests with new seeker?

I'm also reminded of a Twitter exchange with one gent who'd worked with NAG team - he main grouse was that NAG team had revised the problem statement multiple number of times leading to delays.

I think this PROSPINA name change happened to get it out of rut and push development more aggressively.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 21:07

Pratyush wrote: That is the problem that people are not prepare to accept. <SNIP>.

PROBLEM is the pig-headed attitude of BRFites.

Who simply don't won't to learn beyond spouting some cliched nonsense. Because if they did, it would mean they can't make asinine comparison between import of a MAN-PORTABLE ATGM like Spike or Javelin - which has no competing domestic R&D project - with heavy F&F missile like NAG. Which actually has no comparable on global scale!

I mean, it is simpler to post nonsense with words like domestic, indigenous, Natasha, import-loving and what have you then see, learn, think and apply your mind.

BRF head of the curve, as always!

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 11 Jun 2017 21:21

So in Indian context, Anti Tank missiles need to be seen from which wing of the army will use it, what vehicle and range

1. From Tanks : T90s, Arjuns : Invars
2. From IFV : BMPs : Konkurs (15000+ missile), Nag (planned)
3. Infantry : Man portable : Spike (8,000 missiles and > 300 launchers), Kornet (3000 missiles and > 250 launchers), Milan 2T & Milan (30000 missiles)
4. Infantry : Vehicle mounted :
5. Helicopter mounted : Dhruv, LCH : Helina (planned)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jun 2017 21:46

Bishwa wrote:So in Indian context, Anti Tank missiles need to be seen from which wing of the army will use it, what vehicle and range

1. From Tanks : T90s, Arjuns - INVARS, LAHAT
2. From IFV : BMPs presently Konkur-M but BMP upgrade talks of using KORNET. We should seriously explore using NAG in this role though it is heavier than KORNET. FICV should explore using NAG or a lesser heavy version in TOW category
3. Infantry : Man portable MILAN and MILAN-2T. Milan-2T is one with tandem warhead. BDL had developed one based on French inputs but it fell short of range after repeated trials. Inducted after BDL UNION made a presentation to MOD To be replaced majorly by SPIKE and JAVELIN in relatively limited numbers, if it ever comes
4. Infantry : Vehicle mounted No separate segment in IA for such missiles like TOW in Pakistan Army. Milan/Milan-2T is mounted on Mahindra Jeeps. I've seen an image of 1 ton vehicle mounted Konkur-Ms of mechanized infantry. Gives a good elevated platform. A NAG-Lite should be explored for this role, in addition to mounting it on BMP-2 upgrade and FICV
5. Helicopter mounted : Dhruv, LCHSeems to be PARS-L in the interim. And then HELINA

Infantry will form the largest segment, followed by BMP/FICV. With proliferation of attack helicopters in IA, it will also needs a large number of ATGMs.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Jun 2017 23:21

Spike missile (family) comes in variants that allows both vehicle & man portable. Same goes with Javelin.
They do not, by their mere presence means man-portable.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Jun 2017 23:35

ramana wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Ra nana, knkurs is a wire guided missile, so as long as the shooter is able to discriminate the target from surrounding environment it should hit the target.

Though no clue if the firing post is capable of such discrimination.
So the decision was to get retro version of ATGM

ATGM retro version is their long time demand.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2017 01:41

Singha wrote:While laser guided atgm can hit anything its pointed to..how does a fnf atgm like javelin or nag work...does the seeker look down and do pattern matching on tanks and other things or it has a laser seeker?

I mean if its truly fnf how we can make it hit a particular bunker among many or even recognize a bunker which can come in lot of shapes vs a tank or ifv

On the Javelin and most other IIR utilizing FFR weapons in this class the gunner utilizes a CLU and its organic IR system to ID the desired target and then channels the missile'sIR seeker and establishes a track box around the desired target. Once the gunner has the desired target within the track gates and has sufficiently closed them the missile seeker is ready to keep the target focused as the target moves around within its field of view.

Speaking of developmental niggles, keep in mind that the Javelin itself had its growing pains. The seeker performed quite well during technology development, so much so that the US Army moved ahead with the program even before the DARPA run TANKBREAKER program concluded. However soon thereafter when it came to production, the seeker supplier struggled with yield and manufacturing. Texas Instrument at the time (late 1980s) was facing severe quality issues with less than 2% of its FPAs able to meet the performance criteria.

The second seeker supplier was similarly struggling to manufacture the seeker in quantity (unacceptable yield). The program was salvaged in that Hughes stepped in and delivered a seeker that met both performance and could be produced in the desired quantity with the desired yield but not before a delay and break in production.