Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Locked
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

SSridhar wrote:
There was some news that it was tested once in c. 2010.
Tested secretly off Visakhapatnam in January this year, the 10-m long and 1.3-m wide missile emerged from a pontoon submerged 50 m underwater and breached the surface.
...
A second firing, to be conducted off Visakhapatnam within two months, will revalidate a critical parameter-the ability of a 20-tonne projectile to withstand 50 kg of water pressure and eject from a submerged launcher before engaging its rocket booster.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/the- ... 20488.html
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

abhik wrote:Some thing doesn't add up on the claimed K4 specs. Compared to the Agni3 it weighs 1/3rd, has around the same range and yet has a greater payload (1.5 vs 2t). How come?
Comparison has to be with similar entity/generation such as A4, not with A3 or A2.

Both K4 and A4 have similar dia, similar range and equipped with similar tech.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

R-77 specs:
Weight 175 kg (R-77), 226 kg (R-77M1)
Length 3.6 m (R-77)
Diameter 200 mm
Warhead 22 kg [1] HE, fragmenting
Detonation
mechanism laser proximity fuze
Engine Solid fuel rocket motor (R-77), air-breathing ramjet (R-77M1)
Wingspan 350 mm
Operational
range Strongly varying according to source:
R-77:40 km (21.6 nm)[1] - 50 km (27 nm)[2] - 80 km (43.2 nm)[3]
R-77M1:60 km (32.4 nm)[1] - 80 km (43.2 nm)[4] - 160 km (86 nm)[3]
Flight altitude 5 m-25 km (16.5-82,000 ft)
Speed Mach 4.5 (R-77)
Guidance
system Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing

There are other variants under development. One has an upgraded motor to boost range at high altitudes to as much as 120–160 km; it is known as the R-77RVV-AE-PD. The 'PD' stands for Povyshenoy Dalnosti, which in Russian means Improved Range. This variant has been test-fired and uses a solid-fuel ramjet engine. Its range puts it in the long-range class and is equivalent in range to the AIM-54 Phoenix. In another version of the R-77, a terminal infra-red homing seeker is offered. This is in line with the Russian practice of attacking targets by firing pairs of missiles with different homing systems. This complicates end-game defensive actions for the target aircraft, as it needs to successfully defeat two homing systems. This method of attack may not always be available as IR seekers typically have less range and less resistance to poor weather than radar seekers, which may limit the successful use of mixed seeker attacks unless the IR missile is initially directed by radar or some other means.[6][7]

The weapon has a laser fuze and an expanding rod warhead that can destroy the variable sized targets. A product-improvement of the R-77 Adder is in the works, codenamed the R-77M1, and will feature a ramjet propulsion device. This heavier missile system will have a much greater range, and will surely be the primary beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air weapon in upcoming fifth generation Russian frontline fighters.

The radar-guided R-77 has been sold widely, with China and India placing significant orders for the weapon, as was the case for the R-73. The baseline R-77 was designed in the 1980s, with development complete by around 1994. India was the first export customer for the export variant, known as the RVV-AE, with the final batch delivered in 2002.[8][9]

Vympel was the victim of a lack of adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of this decade to support further evolution of the R-77, either for the Russian air force or the export market. The basic version of the R-77 is not thought to have entered the Russian air force inventory in significant numbers.

Additionally, Western suppliers have been pushing into some traditionally Russian markets and some major customers of the R-77 such as India and China have been pursuing their own missile programs, with similar goals, such as the Astra and the PL-12, respectively.

Further Developments

Tactical Missile Corp., also known as TRV, unveiled its so-called RVV-SD and RVV-MD missiles for the first time at the Moscow air show in August 2009. The RVV-SD is an improved version of the R-77 (AA-12 Adder), while the RVV-MD is a variant of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer).[10]

The RVV-SD, along with the RVV-MD, seem to be part of Russia's bid for India's medium multirole combat aircraft competition. Both designations were included by MiG on a presentation covering MiG-35 Fulcrum armament during Aero India Air Show in February.

The basic R-77 is known as the Article 170, and the RVV-SD includes the upgrades associated with the Article 170-1 designation. The 170-1 development has been underway for some time, and testing is believed to have been carried out. The RVV-SD is in effect the export variant of the 170-1.

According to information released by the company, the missile is 15 kg (33 lb) heavier than the basic R-77/RVV-AE, weighing 190 kg (420 lb) rather than 175 kg (390 lb). Maximum range is increased to 110 km (68 mi) from 80 km (50 mi). The missile is also slightly longer at 3.71 metres (12.2 ft), rather than the 3.6 metres (12 ft) of the basic variant.

The radar seeker has also probably been upgraded. Russian missile manufacturer Agat previously confirmed it was working on seeker upgrades for the R-77, implying that at least two projects were underway, one for export and one for the Russian air force.

Vympel—which originally designed the R-77, and is now part of TRV—is also working on a more extensive upgrade of the missile than the 170-1. This project is designated the Article 180, and is in effect a mid-life upgrade for the weapon. This is intended to provide a further improvement in range, with the design including a dual-pulse motor configuration. Moving from the R-77's signature lattice fin configuration to a conventional fin is also part of this program.

The initial RVV-MD offering is likely no more than a stopgap to try to maintain its position, and to provide a credible radar-guided weapon to offer as part of fighter export packages and upgrade programs.

Russian industry sources indicate that both the RVV-SD and RVV-MD will have folding fins to allow for internal carriage. This at least suggests the Russian air force may be keeping its options open should it acquire the domestic variants of these upgrades to include them in the weapons inventory of its fifth-generation fighter, known as PAK-FA. India too, is a partner in the PAK-FA project, and the internal carriage modification may also have been performed with this in mind.
R-27
Weight 253 kg (560 lb)
Length 4.08 m (13.4 ft)
Diameter 230 mm (9.1 in)
Warhead blast/fragmentation, or continuous rod
Warhead weight 39 kg (86 lb)
Detonation
mechanism radar-proximity and impact fuzes
Engine High performance, w. directed-rocket motor
Solid-fuel rocket motor
Wingspan 772 mm (30.4 in)
Operational
range R-27R: up to 80 km
R-27T: up to 70 km
R-27ER: up to 130 km
R-27ET: up to 120 km
R-27EP: up to 130km [1]
Flight altitude N/A
Speed Mach 4.5
Guidance
system semi-active radar homing

R-27R AA-10 Alamo-A, semi-active radar homing. Launch range from Mach 1.4, 11 km altitude: 60 km (head-on) / 21 km (tail-on). Minimum launch range under same conditions 2 km (head-on) / 0.5 to 0.6 km (tail-on).[2] Up to 80 km under optimal conditions[citation needed]
R-27T AA-10 Alamo-B, infrared homing, passive homing using the Avtomatika 9B-1032 (PRGS-27) IR seeker head. Weight 248 kg. Range is said to be 70 km under optimal conditions. The R-27T missile does not possess a data-link, which makes it useful only at much shorter ranges at head-on engagements, however. At tail-on engagements the longer physical reach can be fully utilized.
R-27ER AA-10 Alamo-C, the semi-active-radar homing extended-range version, which is 70 cm longer and slightly wider. Range up to 130 km under optimal conditions. Entered service 1990.
R-27ET AA-10 Alamo-D, the infrared-homing extended-range version, which is 70 cm longer and slightly wider, range of 120 km under optimal conditions using the Avtomatika 9B-1032 (PRGS-27) seeker head. Weight 348 kg. Entered service in 1990. The R-27ET missile does not possess a data-link, which makes it useful only at much shorter ranges at head-on engagements, however. At tail-on engagements the longer physical reach can be fully utilized.
R-27P AA-10 Alamo-E, passive radar homing with a range of up to 72 km.[citation needed]
R-27EP AA-10 Alamo-F, a longer range passive anti-radiation missile with a range of up to 70nm (130 km)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77_%28missile%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_%28ai ... missile%29
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_23694 »

Kanson wrote:Comparison has to be with similar entity/generation such as A4, not with A3 or A2.

Both K4 and A4 have similar dia, similar range and equipped with similar tech.
A4 is 20 m while K 4 is assumed to be 10 m.
So we have based on the open source information missile with half the length , same diameter and weight and at the same time similar range
of around 3500 KM
What are the improvements in K4 compared to A4 ?
1. All composite ? Can it help ?
2. Improvements in propulsion ?
3. ?
Any other pointers.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

^Couple of reasons. Length of K4 is more than 10m... K4 do have separate booster. Unlike in A4 this doesn't adds to K4 length. A4 do have room for improvements. Quoting A4 Proj Director, A4 do/can have more fuel, can cover more range that the stipulated.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_23694 »

^^^
SLBM generally has a max length of 12 m, so still less that 20 m of A 4.
I am not sure if a longer missile will fit in a submarine.

"K4 do have separate booster. Unlike in A4 this doesn't adds to K4 length."
I did not get this point. K4 booster not adding to its length ?
10 or 12 m should be the length of the missile outside the sea water level once ejected from the submarine.
Outside the water , the missile is on its own.Where does the seperate booster come into picture here.

"A4 do have more fuel, can cover more range that the stipulated."
Considering this , then if K4 goes 3500 KM then A4 (suggested range of 3500 KM), with additional
fuel can go to some amazing distance. I am not sure if it is possible
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

Kanson wrote:.....
Tested secretly off Visakhapatnam in January this year, the 10-m long and 1.3-m wide missile emerged from a pontoon submerged 50 m underwater and breached the surface.
...
A second firing, to be conducted off Visakhapatnam within two months, will revalidate a critical parameter-the ability of a 20-tonne projectile to withstand 50 kg of water pressure and eject from a submerged launcher before engaging its rocket booster.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/the- ... 20488.html
Sandeep Unnithan's tone is very judgmental. K-4 is still a developmental missile. Those tests are just to eject it from the underwater launcher. Nothing sub rosa/secret about it as he says. Its not like the missile is ignited and has been flown covertly. Only booster eject from the pontoon. And those tests dont mean much.


The other missiles(Agni series being shown in parades) are with the services and the development phase is completed.

May be he is reading Area 51 type literature?
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

Its been a while we heard from Kanson, good to see him back, the comparison between A4 & K4 of being the same tech generation should mean a closely matched timetable for induction as well? its 2015 for A4
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

sounds like our proper SLBM will be deployed in the next (bigger) class of N-boats only..perhaps with a more pronounced hump to accomodate a lower tech level (say 2m longer) vs the really compact trident d5/M51 types.
something like this cheen Jin class SSBN will have to do...it has to be realistic and matched to our tech levels not pie in sky compactness we cannot yet achieve. our first SLBM will likely be bigger and heavier than M51 to get the same range and payload parameters.
http://frederic.petitdieulois.perso.sfr ... ssbn13.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JL-1_and_JL-2.PNG

we should likely test 2 designs of the hump - a smaller streamlined borei type and a higher jin class type and keep our manufacturing agile to do that hull top section last depending on how our missile form factors progress. the last thing we want is a borei hull with a sineva type missile that wont fit and a bulava that wont work in the IOC timeframe.

better to have a slower SSBN with a useful missile than a fast SSBN with a weaker missile. these are $2 billion investments for a lower middle income country.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Is it possible that K4's better payload + range while being shorter and lighter than agni's could also be due to new and better kind of fuel, like Shri Arun had posted couple of pages back:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1490028
arun wrote:IDSA Occasional Paper No. 31 : India's Nuclear Triad. A Net Assessment.

Came across the above IDSA paper dating back to April 2013.

Paper indicates that Hydroxyl-Terminated Poly Butadiene (HTPB) is being elbowed aside by Nitrate Ester Plasticized Polyether (NEPE) as the solid propellant of choice for Ballistic Missiles and here India is losing technological ground to P.R. China (Pages 24 to 28).

Excerpt:
Most of the Chinese missiles after being upgraded to newer solid versions are better in terms of quality and technology. It’s believed that majority of them use Nitrate Ester Plasticised Polyether (NEPE) kind of propellant which integrates the advantages of double-base propellants and composite propellant, in other term collectively known as composite modified double based propellants. India on the other side currently using Hydroxyl-Terminated Poly Butadiene (HTPB) which is a composite based propellant used in all versions of Agni missiles..................

So fundamentally it is observed that NEPE propellants perform better at higher temperature and for longer period of time, also these propellant perform better in terms of mechanical properties than HTPB at transition temperature, as they become independent of temperature which is important factor for long range missiles especially ICBM. NEPE has various consistencies in its chemical composition, hence it offers wide window of opportunity to enhance efficiency of propellant.

In respect of specific impulse (it is the change in momentum per unit mass for rocket fuels, i.e. more the Isp better is initial thrust hence need of lesser fuel), due to composite modified double based fuel NEPE have better Isp than composite propellant HTPB. Better Isp also gives better initial thrust during stage separation hence longer range in lesser fuel...................
I had emailed this link to Arun_S and he agreed with the article after reading.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

they also have a goal of making the 1st stage composite...not in proto stage yet I think. thats the final frontier on the airframe design itself. can be trialled in a agni1 or agni2 first for low cost testing.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Doesn't seem to have been posted

RCI getting ready to patent its technology
HYDERABAD: Research Centre Imarat (RCI) is all set to go for patenting of its products and technologies, its director G Satheesh Reddy said during the organization's silver jubilee celebrations.

Reddy claimed that a 100% successful test flight of Nag, a gen-3 anti-tank guided missile, would be achieved in 2014. The missile has recently been equipped with 'high resolution' seekers developed by RCI, the guided missile technology laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), and gave a 'fairly accurate' performance in the evaluation trials.

Dr V G Sekaran, chief controller R&D (missiles & strategic systems) and programme director, Agni, cheered the indigenous design and development of missiles and related systems by DRDO. RCI is working full throttle to deliver medium range surface-to-air missiles, smart bombs, precision-guided munition and highly miniaturized avionics on a single module to the forces very soon.

Former President A P J Abdul Kalam, who conceptualized RCI, said that DRDO has to develop technologies that would cater to the requirements of the forces in the next 25-50 years. He stressed upon fusion and mutually benefiting collaboration of IT, bioinformatics, nanotechnology and eco-technology. "Knowledge, not the natural resources, would decide the leaders...DRDO has transformed competitors to customers," said the former President, adding that electronic and virtual warfare are the future of warfare, which would be contactless and robotic. He urged DRDO to make the armed forces self-reliant.

Andhra Pradesh governor ESL Narasimhan asked DRDO to share technologies developed for defence such as those concerning cyber security with the civilian population instead of limiting these to the defence domain.

Avinash Chander, the scientific adviser to the defence minister and secretary, department of defence research and development, put out a list of "to accomplish" missions for RCI, including loitering weapons (80% explosives and 20% avionics), smart bombs and directed energy weapons., avionics on a single module, high energy batteries and IR seekers, e-bombs and an operational ballistic missile defence, medium range surface to air missiles (that are being developed with Israel) for the Indian Air Force, drone arsenal and long range guided bombs.

Box: Located in a lush green campus named as "Vignyana Kancha", RCI is entrusted with R&D in the areas of Control Engineering, Inertial Navigation, Imaging Infrared seekers, RF Seekers, on-board computers, flight Simulation, Mission Software, Power Supply Systems and Flight Instrumentation along with establishment of key infrastructure facilities such as Environmental test facility and EMI/EMC test facility. Its core competencies are Design, development and limited production of Ring Laser gyro, Fiber Optic Gyro, new generation accelerometers, MEMS based sensors, High performance Electro-Hydraulic Servo Valve, System on Chip, Advanced Seekers, Electromechanical Controls, RLG based INS, MEMS based INS, Fiber Optic Gyroscope based miniaturized INS, FOG based Sensor units and Secured Data Links. RCI is an ISO & AS 9100 lab meeting the requirements of international quality standards.
Bhai log what is this e-bum??
member_24146
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_24146 »

Bhai log what is this e-bum??
A bomb that generates a strong electromagnetic pulse in the microwave frequency range, used to destroy or disrupt electronic equipments. See below picture.
Image
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Ah .. the erstwhile emp

Thanks
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

newbie question:
Regarding ebomb, why does the bomb needs to be detonated? doesn't detonation destroy the sensitive equipment on board? can't the switch be activated at certain altitude to generate a strong electromagnetic pulse above the target area? what is the need to detonate? does it mean that bomb also pulverizes the targets?
member_23658
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_23658 »

"India developing E-Bomb to Paralyze networks"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 127411.cms
The director general of DRDO said that the electromagnetic shock wave from the bomb will destroy electronic circuits and communication network "while paralyzing them in terms of radars, communication networking, information gathering sensors, controls and other electronic equipment." Work is in full swing at the Research Centre Imarat, the Hyderabad-based laboratory of DRDO, to build the new bomb which will be ready for operational deployment within a few years
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

India is always developing something already developed in the West. Its time to create new paradigms.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6575
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by sanjaykumar »

I don't know of a non-nuclear EMP device.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

ramana wrote:India is always developing something already developed in the West. Its time to create new paradigms.
Agree. Also, the way forward with 'stealth' is to not do things overtly such as EMP 'bombs'. They invite asymmetric reactions--like nukes.

Instead, harness the power of the mother of all stuxnets. Effective, deniable and cheap given our brainpower.

We are on the edge of an era where the 'enemy's' assets can be turned into liabilities.

Think about it.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25368
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

venug wrote:newbie question:
Regarding ebomb, why does the bomb needs to be detonated? doesn't detonation destroy the sensitive equipment on board? can't the switch be activated at certain altitude to generate a strong electromagnetic pulse above the target area? what is the need to detonate? does it mean that bomb also pulverizes the targets?
venug, here, 'detonation' is not to be misunderstood in the conventional sense.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Sagar G »

ramana wrote:India is always developing something already developed in the West. Its time to create new paradigms.
For this to happen we need the required ecosystem, where is that ecosystem ??? We like it or not but in many fields we are still in the developmental stage. It's a bit strange that this is coming from you given that you know about this issue better than most posters here.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

sanjaykumar wrote:I don't know of a non-nuclear EMP device.
what about the one shown on Oceans 11? :wink:
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

dhiraj wrote: "A4 do have more fuel, can cover more range that the stipulated."
Considering this , then if K4 goes 3500 KM then A4 (suggested range of 3500 KM), with additional
fuel can go to some amazing distance. I am not sure if it is possible
There was no particular figure given in terms of distance by Smt. Tessy Thomas, A4 Proj Director. So no need to have disbelief either way.

As you mentioned, both have similar range & similar weight. That tells you both K4 and A4 are contemporary missiles which can be compared. That is the point I'm making.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

ramana wrote:
Sandeep Unnithan's tone is very judgmental. K-4 is still a developmental missile. Those tests are just to eject it from the underwater launcher. Nothing sub rosa/secret about it as he says. Its not like the missile is ignited and has been flown covertly. Only booster eject from the pontoon. And those tests dont mean much.


The other missiles(Agni series being shown in parades) are with the services and the development phase is completed.

May be he is reading Area 51 type literature?
Pranam ramana ji. There are no subtleties in his tone to have a disagreement in your assessment, it even goes bizarre at one point. People can be genuinely excited over an event. But playing one Service against another, one team against another is downright unethical and to talk of turf war and including comment to say it as a huge success becoz it is Navy's project is bizarre.

From Kalam to latest Tessy Thomas, though they lead the project never took credit for themselves in the face of success. They always highlighted the contribution of their teams. In such environment, SU's tone sticks out like a sore thumb.

Only booster eject from the pontoon. And those tests dont mean much.
I think, those tests evaluate booster performance as well as missile design and dynamics and these are very important tests. In my view, any improper testing at this phase can later result in losing the Sub at live firings.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

vasu raya wrote:Its been a while we heard from Kanson, good to see him back, the comparison between A4 & K4 of being the same tech generation should mean a closely matched timetable for induction as well? its 2015 for A4
Hi..Nice to see you! Yes, closely matched timetable in testing and hopefully for induction too!
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by darshhan »

ramana wrote:India is always developing something already developed in the West. Its time to create new paradigms.

Absolutely on dot Ramana ji. This is not only true for Systems but also Concepts. One example is the concept of Nuclear Triad which is supposedly required for Effective Nuclear Attack/Retaliation. I could think of more than 4-5 methods that are much more effective than any of the ones prescribed in Nuclear Triad.

Infact if you ask me our definition of WMD itself leaves lot to be desired, being limited to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.

The reason for this follower type of mentality can be attributed to the following causes

1. Pacifist and Demilitarized mindset of Indic Population which in turn is a result of sustained Macaulized education over 1 century mixed with Nehruvian/Gandhian legacy of non aggression and eunuchification. The dhimmification process is almost complete.

2. Low amount of self confidence and self esteem amongst Indic population which means continuous need to take approval from White people(Goras). The best way to do this is to simply copy them.

3. The combination of Points 1 and 2 mean that relative to its Numbers, the Indic group will find very few men who have adequate Leadership qualities and can take initiative when it comes to changing Paradigms especially when it comes to strategic and military thinking.

4. The Few original thinkers who do manage to exist, are seldom if ever allowed to participate anywhere in Decision making process due to a combination of Cronyism, Corruption, Stiffling Bureaucracy and Foreign influence(yes it is there).

There are quite a few disadvantages to this follower type approach.

1. India will always be playing catch up to West and China. This will be our default position.

2. India simply does not have Industrial ecosystem, Procurement model or Manpower resources to come out on top in the existing paradigm. The existing paradigm being highly dependent on massive military industrial complexes supported by large quantity of competent manpower. For eg. take the case of Ordnance Factory Nalanda supposed to produce Bi Modular Charge System used in 155 MM Artillery ammunition. The foundation for this factory was laid in 1999. Fourteen years down the line this factory has not produced a single BMCS. The BMCS Plant ( actually a combination of five different interconnected plants ) is non existent to this date. Even the construction has not started. Corruption and flawed procurement model has meant that majority of international suppliers ( Denel, IMI etc) for this plant stand blacklisted as of now.

3. The above means that in the current paradigm we can only fight countries like Pakistan who are themselves dependent on outside powers for their defence requirements. With Countries like PRC we can only fight an extremely limited war and there too we will be at tremendous disadvantage.

4. Additionally since the Indic civilian population has by and large been rendered harmless through disarming and pacifist education/propaganda, even a modest resistance movement of any means is mostly improbable in case of an attack by a superior adversary. Case in point - A country like Afghanistan. It don't have any military industrial complex, has not produced any scientist of note but still has been able to defeat both the Soviet Union and America in last 3 decades (of course with active support from Pakistan). The reason is that Afghan population has not undergone pacifist brainwashing that was applied to Indics and they have access to weapons.

5. The point is that now India neither has a modern military (Relative to the military threats it faces) as of now and nor its population is empowered or geared to fight on its own. We are neither here nor there.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

If India needs to shift paradigm, then they have to ensure existing paradigms are experienced, and raced against especially in quantum and nano world of technology. without that ionization, it is impossible to define a new zone... unless, there is something orthogonal that no human being ever thought about still out there large, vast, and unexplored.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

SS garu, thank you.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

Kanson, Indian press is unnecessarily anti-establishment. They can and should be sceptical of unverifable claims, but to adopt a tone of conspiracy in reporting nationally important porjects is downright imbecile.

Eg Arihant had many scope changes from an attack sub it became a boomer and event then it was funded only lately. Yet they keep writing about when there was just a notional thought in the GOI and start the clock ticking. The Services/DRDO has a notion and get approval in priniciple. Then the stakeholders all change the mission by committee. Then the Finance minstry gets parsimonious(they spend like water on other schemes!) and give 10% of what is asked. Leads to again redesign. Meantime Services request even more changes!

Unfortunately the likes of Maharaj K Chopra (Ind Exp), G.K. Reddy (Hindu) and Hormuz Mama(Interavia) have no successors. TSS of Hindu is the one exception. Tried to encourage Chacko but he took off.
Maybe 'breaking news' type of milieu in India fosters this attitude?

Yes am very aware of the UWL process.
For UWL proofing the K15 was the first risky vehicle. After that its a matter of scale only. K15 was risky due to being the first attempt in India but more than that its a slender vehicle and could be subject to hydrodynamic forces due to underwater currents. K4 on the other hand is unlikely to have issues with that load due to the short and squat design.

At same time its heavier and thus could have potential jet impingement loads. So need to tailor the booster charge to eject it with sufficient delta velocity to escape the jet.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

darshann, While I might vent in frustration, there are some unique unheard of concepts from the labs. And they get inspiration from the puranas.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6575
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by sanjaykumar »

I hope you are not going on hearsay and self-promotion Ramana.
Reflexive disbelief is the sceptic's best friend.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Indian MoD, Contractor Faulted in Guided-missile Purchases
NEW DELHI — India’s Defence Ministry has been severely criticized for buying 10,000 Konkurs-M anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) from Russia despite having a licensed production facility for the missiles at state-owned Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL).

The latest report of the comptroller and auditor general of India (CAG), placed in the Indian Parliament recently, said, “Failure of BDL to supply the missiles intended by the Indian Army resulted in conclusion of a contract for import of 10,000 missiles at a cost of $188 million defeating the very objective of avoiding dependence on foreign supplier for the ammunition.”

A source in BDL said the Russians failed to transfer the technology to India, which kept BDL from absorbing the information on time and led to production delays. However, a Russian diplomat here said all promised technologies for the advanced Konkus-M missile have been transferred to BDL.

However, the CAG report said BDL was slow in enhancing the production base for the Konkurs-M missiles.

“The Hyderabad-based defense public sector unit BDL planned to increase its production capacity from 3,000 to 4,500 missiles per year by 2012, and up to 6,000 missiles by 2013. In reality, the capacity was augmented by only 500 missiles per annum until February 2013.

<snip>

Another retired Indian Army officer said the delay by BDL led to a shortage of ATGMs, which finally led to purchases from Russia. “An inquiry should be held to find if the delays by BDL were intentional and meant to benefit the Russians,” he said.

<snip>

When asked about BDL’s performance, the Army official said BDL’s monopoly should be broken and the MoD should identify another agency, preferably in the private industry.

An MoD official said the Army’s initial requirement is about 24,000 ATGMs to arm its 356 infantry units, adding that this procurement will be completed by the end of the twelfth plan period in 2017.

<snip>

The purchase of new generation of ATGMs worth $3 billion could be re-floated as a separate program by the end of the year, the source said.
Has BDL taken the BEML route?
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by krishnan »

24,0000 ATGMS ???? we going to destroy all the world tanks ?????
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Sanku »

krishnan wrote:24,0000 ATGMS ???? we going to destroy all the world tanks ?????
Singha ji must have sneaked in Sena Bhavan one night and written the specs for this order.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

24000 units for 356 battalions ~70 per unit including reserves.
And ATGM capability in such numbers frees up the armoured elements to be consolidated into inde brigades.

Even in the 90s IA used to ask for such high numbers. Having kown the demand why was BDl allowed to expand 500 units per annum only?

Sure there is a Finance ministry objection at the root.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3029
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Sanku wrote:
krishnan wrote:24,0000 ATGMS ???? we going to destroy all the world tanks ?????
Singha ji must have sneaked in Sena Bhavan one night and written the specs for this order.

Sanku++ :) or added the extra zeros!
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4496
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

24,000 ATGMs out of which 776 are Nags (3%) as part of an initial order.

Hopefully Nag & CLGM orders will end up satisfying at least 20% of this order
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Sagar G »

pankajs wrote:Has BDL taken the BEML route?
The DPSU's act as the front company for the dirty businesses of the MoD and GoI.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

not just DPSU, all PSUs to some extent are used like this by political class. mining PSUs like coal india, or employment PSUs like railways...the big boys use their vast resources as personal property.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

These days ATGM are not limited to hitting tanks or lightly armoured targets but are also used to take our hardened targets like bunkers etc from stand off range so the high number likely reflects the trend , the warhed of ATGM these days comes in different variants.
Locked