Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2010 14:21

Singha wrote:
....an artillery brigade for Arunachal Pradesh .............

Which artillery brigade are you referring to?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Feb 2010 15:11

dinesha wrote: Moreover, the Army is now poised to order two Akash regiments, with six firing batteries each, for around Rs 4,000 crore.

For me important is finally IA is going to order Akash ... finally!!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2010 15:23

RKumar wrote:
dinesha wrote: Moreover, the Army is now poised to order two Akash regiments, with six firing batteries each, for around Rs 4,000 crore.

For me important is finally IA is going to order Akash ... finally!!!

The number of batteries in all should be six and not six in each........each regiment imo will have three batteries.....question is, how many firing units in each battery?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Feb 2010 15:32

rohitvats wrote: The number of batteries in all should be six and not six in each........each regiment imo will have three batteries.....question is, how many firing units in each battery?

Does it mean IAF and IA will have different terms (squadron, regiment) as well deployment plans for Akash???

For IAF --> 1 Sq -> 4 launchers -> each launcher have 3 ready to fire missile
For IA --> 1 regiment -> 3 batteries -> ? launchers -> each launcher have ? ready to fire missile

I have learned to ignore in-capable defense reporting from jornos.... e.g.

basing of two Sukhoi-30MKI squadrons (36 fighters) each at Tezpur and Chabua in Assam.

Every squadron will have two `flights' of four Akash launchers each

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2010 16:25

RKumar wrote:
Does it mean IAF and IA will have different terms (squadron, regiment) as well deployment plans for Akash???.........<SNIP>

IA Air Defence Artillery units are called as Regiments and IAF uses the Squadron denomination for its ground units, especially the AD Missile units.Just because they use the same eqp. does not mean that the name will be same. The operational deployment will be as per role envisaged.

IA Artillery and ADA units have three batteries/regiment.What remains to be seen is number of launchers per battery for the AKASH Regiments. And four launchers/Squadron for IAF AD units is really low.

and btw....each flying squadron of IAF is sub-divided into flights of 3 a/c each and each sqn has 6 flights.So, it is but natural that the AD Missile Sqn. will also have flights as sub-units.The question is how many such flights/squadron are there.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Feb 2010 16:47

^
Thank you Rohit for the insight of the deployments of IA and IAF.

As per my understanding 1 squadron has 18 planes. So what role remaining 6 planes play (trainers/reserves).
IAF 1 flying squadron -> 4 flights -> 1 flight has 3 planes (12)

Kindly expalin in more details... as for me these are counter-statements (Or you mean to say DRDO under-estimated the AD Missile setup)
As per DRDO --> 1 Sq -> 4 launchers -> each launcher have 3 ready to fire missile
---> 1 sq -> 2 flights -> 4 launchers -> each launcher have 3 ready to fire missile (doubles the number of launchers from DRDO setup)

Every squadron will have two `flights' of four Akash launchers each

and

So, it is but natural that the AD Missile Sqn. will also have flights

and

And four laucnher/Squadron for IAF AD units is really low.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2010 17:30

and btw....each flying squadron of IAF is sub-devided into flights of 3 a/c each and each sqn has four flights.

rohit, are you sure of this ? I thought IAF sqdns have 18 fighters (16 single seaters + 2 type trainers) each + reserves. although IIRC IAF sqdns did have lesser aircrafts in the olden days.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2010 17:53

^^^Gentlemen, my bad. The number of flights should be 6 and not 4 (i do not know why i typed 4

)?I have corrected my post.

And the articles on Akash says there will be 2 Flights/Squadron@4 Launchers per flight.That will make it 24 ready to fire MR SAMs.Will that suffice for a base?Honestly, I do not know.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Feb 2010 18:11

As per wiki

For IAF --> 1 Squadron -> 2 flights -> each battery has 4 launchers -> each launcher have 3 ready to fire missile
For IA --> 1 regiment -> upto 4 batteries -> each battery has 4 launchers -> each launcher have 3 ready to fire missile

Each Akash battery/flight can engage up to 4 targets at the same time. e.g.
IAF -> 8 target at any given time (can fire 2 missiles in 5 sec at each target)
IA -> upto 16 target at any given time (can fire 2 missiles in 5 sec at each target)

Question is what happen after first target
what is reload time
How much is next target assignment delay time?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Feb 2010 19:14

Russia to offer India air defense systems?

“Information about the Buk-M2E and Tor-M2E air defence weapons and Komar (Mosquito) turret mounts for the Igla short-range man-portable air defence system will be for the first time presented at the Indian exhibition,” the FSMTC stressed.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.htm ... &PageNum=0

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2010 23:43

shukla wrote:Russia to offer India air defense systems?

“Information about the Buk-M2E and Tor-M2E air defence weapons and Komar (Mosquito) turret mounts for the Igla short-range man-portable air defence system will be for the first time presented at the Indian exhibition,” the FSMTC stressed.
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.htm ... &PageNum=0

Tor-M2E--->Yes; but why the Buk-M2E when we have the Akash?

PS:Wasn't IA looking for some other Low-level QRM?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Feb 2010 00:01

Regarding Akash something caught my eye in the posted link

With an 88% "kill probability'', it can even take on sub-sonic cruise missiles.

Is this true or is it good old DDM ????

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 17 Feb 2010 00:17

Sagar G wrote:Regarding Akash something caught my eye in the posted link

With an 88% "kill probability'', it can even take on sub-sonic cruise missiles.
Is this true or is it good old DDM ????

From DRDO website this Interview of Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller R&D (SI) and DS Interview (The Week Feb. 17, 2008)

....
What is the kill probability?

On a single launch it is 88 per cent. Assured 88 per cent. So when the target enters the optimum kill zone, the commander gets a beep. Unless he has any other information, he will clear the launch. Then the missile is checked automatically, and it fires. When the missile flies, the radar tracks it. If the first missile does not take off due to any mistake, automatically a second missile gets launched.

Suppose the target is high priority, the commander would take no chances. He can then launch two missiles at the same target. One will go, and after 5 seconds the other will go. Then the kill probability is 99 per cent.

And it is most reliable. We were telling the Air Force that even if four out of five launches [done last month] succeed, you should take it. Some quality control problem, some loose wires, something not put correctly, can cause a problem in one or two. Even in imported, mature systems, produced in hundreds, a few could fail. But five out of five succeeded. Not even a single one misbehaved....

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Feb 2010 00:20

While I am happy about massive orders for Akash, what is going on post-Akash?

I was hoping that Akash development continues with later orders picking up Akash2. Is there a next-gen Akash or something?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Feb 2010 00:26

As in collab with Israelis?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Feb 2010 00:35

AK,

Try: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /akash.htm

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Feb 2010 00:58

BijuShet wrote: From DRDO website this Interview of Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller R&D (SI) and DS Interview (The Week Feb. 17, 2008)

You didn't get me I was not asking about the probability part but this

it can even take on sub-sonic cruise missiles

AFAIK we don't have land based capability to engage cruise missiles yet, IIRC Dr. Saraswat said this in AI-09.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 17 Feb 2010 00:59

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 17 Feb 2010 01:06

Ajai Shukla's weekly Business Standard article focuses on Shaurya missile this week. There's a formatting error in the article, with part of the text being from another article, but is still readable. Should be posted on his blog soon too. Excerpts:
Shaurya surfaces as India's underwater nuclear missile

The country’s top defence scientist has, for the first time, revealed that India’s new Shaurya missile, which can carry a one-tonne nuclear warhead over 750 kilometers, is specially designed to be fired from Indian submarines and could form the crucial third leg of India’s nuclear deterrent.

If launched from a submarine off the China coast, it could hit several Chinese cities like Beijing, Nanjing and Shanghai.

Air and land-based nuclear weapons are delivered to their targets by fighter aircraft and ballistic missiles, respectively. Since these can be knocked out by an enemy first strike, the most reliable nuclear deterrent has traditionally been underwater, missiles hidden in a submarine.

V K Saraswat, the DRDO chief and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, revealed to Business Standard at the ongoing Defexpo 2010, “We have designed the Shaurya so that it can be launched from under water as easily as from land. The gas-filled canister that houses the missile fits easily into a submarine. The underwater leg of the nuclear triad needs to be totally reliable and needs a state-of-the-art missile.”

India’s undersea deterrent had so far revolved around the K-15 ballistic missile, built with significant help from Russia. The K-15 was to equip the INS Arihant, India’s lone nuclear-powered submarine, which is being constructed in Visakhapatnam. But now, after rigorous underwater testing, the Shaurya could be the mainstay of Arihant’s arsenal.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Feb 2010 01:17

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Feb 2010 01:20

Hmmm interesting

Edit:- Dr. Saraswat's view

“I would say the Shaurya is a hybrid propulsion missile”, says Dr Saraswat. “Like a ballistic missile, it is powered by solid fuel. And, like a cruise missile, it can guide itself right up to the target.”

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Feb 2010 05:36

India’s undersea deterrent had so far revolved around the K-15 ballistic missile, built with significant help from Russia. The K-15 was to equip the INS Arihant, India’s lone nuclear-powered submarine, which is being constructed in Visakhapatnam. But now, after rigorous underwater testing, the Shaurya could be the mainstay of Arihant’s arsenal.

What do the K-15 and Shaurya share?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Feb 2010 06:11

NRao wrote:As in collab with Israelis?

NRao wrote:AK,
Try: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /akash.htm

NRao,

Both good pointers. That answers one part of my question, Thanks. Its a good view of the Indo-Israeli JV. I was still hoping that there be an all-Indian MRSAM (70Km), as a next step for Akash.

From the above, it seems like the JV is going to be 70%-30%, which will nevertheless be driven by Israeli minds. If this is a interim step to get there quickly and gain know-how on the way, then I see the point.

I still am dissapointed...
From the second link

MBDA would develop an active homing head, thrust-vector controls and missiles. DRDL will handle software, command-and-control, and integration.

This reiterates what I heard from Paanwala involved with these ventures. That none of the JV's really open up the critical components (seeker for example) and there is no alternative to doing it from scratch, which needs patience.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 17 Feb 2010 07:32

Shortly before the Defexpo 2010, Dr Saraswat had publicly stated that India’s missile technology was ahead of China’s and Pakistan’s.

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere.

The One and Only Hypersonic Cruise Missile Of the World-Shourya

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2010 07:47

Shaurya surfaces as India's underwater nuclear missile

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere.

“I would say the Shaurya is a hybrid propulsion missile”, says Dr Saraswat. “Like a ballistic missile, it is powered by solid fuel. And, like a cruise missile, it can guide itself right up to the target.”

I was saying this right from the beginning when Shaurya was unveiled that it is more similar to Brahmos. Now you hear it as the official news. All those who talked this as ballistic missile having a range of ~1500 km are blinkered to the obvious design feature. Can we say that BRF is ahead of the curve.

And all these talk of K-15 being exo-atmospheric cruise/Quasi ballistic missile goes down the gutter.

The Shaurya has none of these issues. Its solid-fuel, two-stage rocket accelerates the missile to six times the speed of sound before it reaches an altitude of 40 kilometers (125,000 feet), after which it levels out and cruises towards the target, powered by its onboard fuel.

The other article talked about K-15 reaching the altitude of 20km very similar to Brahmos. It is very possible to expect a AShm role for the K-15. ( You heard it first here.)

Conventional cruise missiles, like the American Tomahawk and the Indo-Russian Brahmos, offer similar accuracy. But their air-breathing engines carry them along slowly, rendering them vulnerable to enemy aircraft and missiles. The Shaurya’s solid-fuel, air-independent engine propels it along at hypersonic speeds, leaving enemy fighters and missiles far behind.

If I can add, the tone for the Brahmos LACM Mark II testing was set based on Shaurya's performance.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2010 08:01

rakall wrote:
Rahul M wrote:looks to me that the people held responsible for the fiasco found a journo to vent.
The news article itself is dubious to me..

The DRDO line was "there was no design deficiency.. there were manufacturing defects"... which infers there would have been some quality control problems.. remember the problems with one of the strap-ons failing on the GSLV - similar.

However the manufacturing itself is not done by DRDL/ASL/RCI (except for some critical items).. starting with LSP stage - most of the manufacturing is done by BDL & private industry.. So the blame is not really with any "junior scientists".

there will be quality assurance scientists whose job is to oversee what comes in is inline with the specifications within the specified tolearances.. and if there is a manufacturing defect & it flowed into the assembly of the missile -- then, ofcourse, the quality assurance guy is in the firing line... But the fault really originates with the fabricator (either private or BDL) and the responsibility also rests with the quality assurance team.. However in this case - it is fairly clear and one cannot shirt responsibility..

But the surmise of the article that blame is "unnecessarily or unreasonably" being passed on to some junior scientists is without strong base..

This article reminds of the popular talk during the N deal discourse, where it is discussed that Seniors can escape from the blame as N weapon wont be tested with voluntary moratorium and CTBT hanging over the head, so they can claim N test as successful.

If the blame is fixed on juniors as the paper claims, how it is possible to make the next Agni-II test a success. They are fishing in the dirty pond.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2010 08:05

a_kumar wrote:
I still am dissapointed...
From the second link
MBDA would develop an active homing head, thrust-vector controls and missiles. DRDL will handle software, command-and-control, and integration.
This reiterates what I heard from Paanwala involved with these ventures. That none of the JV's really open up the critical components (seeker for example) and there is no alternative to doing it from scratch, which needs patience.

You just check what Dr. Prahlada said on this. I dont have the link handy. You may get it by googling.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2010 08:34

HT - arihant will enter service with K-15 but could presumably fit in Shourya too once proven.
with a similar range and payload, the K-15 would presumably have higher re-entry speed and
zenith height but Shourya maybe more difficult to target by ABM radars.

Arihant to be armed with ballistic missiles

Rahul Singh, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, February 17, 2010

The man steering India’s highly classified nuclear-powered submarine programme has acknowledged for the first time that the warship will be armed with ballistic missiles.

Vice-Admiral D.P.S. Varma (retd), Director General, Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project, told HT at DEFEXPO-2010, “The K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missiles jolly well be there on INS Arihant when it is inducted into the Navy. The N-sub should hopefully be with the Navy by the end of 2011.”

The K-15 missile, a closely guarded DRDO secret, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead up to 700 km. With 12 ballistic missiles in its arsenal, the Arihant will complete the sea-leg of India’s nuclear triad and give it enduring nuclear strike and counter-strike capabilities. India can carry out nuclear strikes with fighter planes and land-launched missiles.

Asked how work on Arihant was shaping up, Varma said, “We are on track. But the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. So we will know when the Navy inducts it.”

The usually tight-lipped Varma said India’s submarine fleet should have five to six nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. He said plans were afoot to build two more nuclear-powered submarines to reinforce India’s strategic deterrent force at sea. He said, “We have to cross a certain milestone before going into specifics.”

Larsen & Toubro, which built the hull for Arihant, has fabricated the hulls for the new N-subs. The United States, Russia, the UK, France and China are the only countries that can deliver nuclear warheads from a submarine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2010 08:35

one thing we can work on is reducing the IR signature of the missiles on launch. so far all ICBM launches I see have a massive 1st stage fireball as the beast launches out of the tube....

at some stage one can expect PRC to have a collection of early warning sats looking for heat signatures.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Feb 2010 08:44

^ I wonder if reducing heat signature is practically viable on an expendable platform , however they say Russia developed the Topol-M keeping in mind the vulnerability of the BMs in boost phase from ABM measures which rely on early warning ; it is said Topol-M first stage boosts the missile into more energetic mid course in a very short span of time compared to old generation missiles leaving the adversary with very little time to react as far as boost phase interception is concerned.

Paging Austin for more details.

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 17 Feb 2010 09:08

At the time of Arihant launch wasn't there a word around about another K-xx missile with a range much greater than 750Km? And If Russia helped in K-15 how come it is out of MTCR. Broadswords statement of launching a missile of the china coast is not a gr8 option, we definitely need a longer reach from underwater....

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 17 Feb 2010 10:04

jaladipc wrote:
Shortly before the Defexpo 2010, Dr Saraswat had publicly stated that India’s missile technology was ahead of China’s and Pakistan’s.

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere.
The One and Only Hypersonic Cruise Missile Of the World-Shourya

While this is good news, comparisons with Tomahawk are a bit exaggerated:

a) Shaurya does not have terminal guidance afaik

b) Accuracy of 20-30m over a 750KM range is good but not great. Per reports, Agni-3 with a 3500KM range has a 40m CEP. Tomahawk (because of TERCOM, GPS and terminal guidance) is claimed to have a 10m CEP over a 2500KM range

c) Just because the Tomahawk is subsonic doesnt mean it is more vulnerable. Because of TERCOM, it can fly at tree-top heights making detection from ground based radars very difficult

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2010 10:16

The other article talked about K-15 reaching the altitude of 20km very similar to Brahmos. It is very possible to expect a AShm role for the K-15. ( You heard it first here.)

the problems with target acquisition and real time tracking would still need to be solved. but yes, the profile does make it sound 'interesting' for the role.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 17 Feb 2010 10:17

Prem Kumar wrote:
jaladipc wrote: The One and Only Hypersonic Cruise Missile Of the World-Shourya
While this is good news, comparisons with Tomahawk are a bit exaggerated:

a) Shaurya does not have terminal guidance afaik

b) Accuracy of 20-30m over a 750KM range is good but not great. Per reports, Agni-3 with a 3500KM range has a 40m CEP. Tomahawk (because of TERCOM, GPS and terminal guidance) is claimed to have a 10m CEP over a 2500KM range

c) Just because the Tomahawk is subsonic doesnt mean it is more vulnerable. Because of TERCOM, it can fly at tree-top heights making detection from ground based radars very difficult

“I would say the Shaurya is a hybrid propulsion missile”, says Dr Saraswat. “Like a ballistic missile, it is powered by solid fuel. And, like a cruise missile, it can guide itself right up to the target.”

Making the Shaurya even more capable is its ability to manoeuvre, following a twisting path to the target that makes it very difficult to shoot it down. In contrast, a ballistic missile is predictable; its trajectory gives away its target and its path to it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2010 10:17

I think people have in past preferred the mach20+ RV speed of a ICBM which still today is not interceptible by any ABM weapon.

but its good to have different choices of weapons and launch the kitchen sink when the day of the dog dawns

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2010 10:28

Is it required to have hypersonic speeds for Air to Surface/Land missiles (benefits against B-I)? Since its optimized for air launches, what kind of targets are we talking with this hypersonic B-II?

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 17 Feb 2010 10:44

The Business Standard article is all jumbled up and hard to read. Here is the link to the article at his blog.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... water.html

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 17 Feb 2010 10:47

With canisterised Shourya (land version of K-15) with 750 km range in operation, does this mean the end of Prithvi series as a ballistic-missile?

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 17 Feb 2010 10:52

^^^ Prithvi is a tactical BM with ranges from 150-350 Km based on version, it fills a different role than Shourya...so, my thought is Prithvi will be staying for some time now(Though liquid prop is a bit cumbersome...)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2010 10:54

brahmos2 would be our version of the old SRAM - short range attack missile fired from B52 bombers or the new JASSM_ER (1000km) thats still a failure in many tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM (speed mach3)

conventionally - meant to take out the most heavily defended SAM sites in depth
without risking planes