Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 25 Jun 2016 10:22

Livefist ‏@livefist

More Pic

member_29068 · Post by **member_29068** » 25 Jun 2016 10:27

Not sure about the '300km' limit,but game changer indeed!
https://twitter.com/manupubby_ET/status ... 7438866436

member_29068 · Post by **member_29068** » 25 Jun 2016 10:29

Video from @Livefist
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/746585004784816129

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Jun 2016 11:33

abhishek_sharma wrote:Manu Pubby ‏@manupubby_ET · 8m8 minutes ago

"Su-30-BRAHMOS combination will carry out air combat operations within and beyond visibility range" - Brahmos.

Interesting and Pics also, the aircraft is maneuverable enough for WVR combat with the Missile. The russians have stated in the past R-73 can take done incoming Phonix missile and other AAM's, so in theory the aircraft can tackle hostile fighters long range SAM's and get the Brahmos locked on to its target release and come back, So Brahmos Combo can take out a relatively Highly defended High target 1000km in enemy territory.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Jun 2016 12:28

Arun Menon wrote:The question is how many foreign missiles can do what IA asked for.

The comment above is a classic example of reaction on BRF whenever some genuine report emerges about performance short-fall in a domestic product. Never mind the fact Indian R&D establishment was working on these goals from Day 01 and it has got nothing to do with what foreign products can or cannot do.

BTW - here is a counter question to you: Which foreign missile has IA asked for in this (NAG) category?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Jun 2016 12:50

Gyan wrote:In a burning heat of mid summer desert, after the enemy tank has been baked in for many hours, why use an IIR seeker missile? Why not CCD(daytime TV) seeker which is 1/100th the cost? Namica can be configured to carry 4 IIR and 2 CCD missiles on long range missions.

Incidentally, if Nag cannot lock on such enemy tanks in hot summer then how will the Crew detect them in the first place?

If the enemy tank is not even on APU and is fully idle and baked in for many hours in summer heat then how is it a threat? How is the enemy crew surviving?

Namica will never be alone, it will be accompanied with T-90s/ATGM teams, so what such T-90s/ATGMs would be doing in such a situation?

Just a few days back, I read a very nice commentary by one of the Indian gurus - he said that man tries to use his limited knowledge to judge the actions of the God. And using the limited reference plane and knowledge at his disposal, comments on the rights or wrongs of God's action. Not comprehending that God's wisdom is infinite or much beyond the scope of understanding of a normal human brain. We judge God by our standards and we pass/fail him basis the very same standards.

The post above is exactly on the same lines. It is pretty symptomatic of how we create reference plane using our limited knowledge and pass judgement by evaluating actions in that limited reference plain.

So, never mind the fact that NAG having two set of missiles - one for fighting between 11am-3pm and another for ops before and after that seems pretty ridiculous. Apart from the fact that it places huge burden on logistics etc. And for once, the DRDO is doing the right thing in asking for range relaxation to ensure induction of the missile of the missile which even with 3.2 km range offers pretty good capability.

As for these parts from the above post:

If the enemy tank is not even on APU and is fully idle and baked in for many hours in summer heat then how is it a threat? How is the enemy crew surviving?

Namica will never be alone, it will be accompanied with T-90s/ATGM teams, so what such T-90s/ATGMs would be doing in such a situation?

See, how absolutely we're sure that the above is definitely the case. And hence, IA is trying to pull wool over the R&D establishment by raising inane requirements.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Jun 2016 13:28

Wonder if the range limit for brahmos will be changed now.. or better name all Brahmos missiles as Brahmos ER .. problem solved with a bit of paint

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2016 15:10

Which are these other mijjiles in white ?

The brahmos got a big head btw ..

Perfect for baki musharrafs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jun 2016 15:32

With India into MTCR increasing range of Brahmos to 600 km should not be a problem , DRDO has indeed mentioned that in some presentation of those range

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2016 16:21

The people folks. Don't forget the people. Throw away/forget skilled people and we have nothing

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2016 16:24

china wing loong ucav crashed in tsp. hook or crook dragon is kitting up its cat with sharp claws

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2016 16:25

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2016 16:39

rohitvats wrote: symptomatic of how we create reference plane using our limited knowledge and pass judgement by evaluating actions in that limited reference plain.

If the enemy tank is not even on APU and is fully idle and baked in for many hours in summer heat then how is it a threat? How is the enemy crew surviving?

There is Amriki hawa in that post - AFAIK this is the second post I am seeing about tanks with APU running. I would be happy to be corrected but American info-blasting is so heavy that people are talking of tank APUs. Only Abrams tanks with gas turbine engines use an APU. All other tanks have standard internal combustion engines that start with motors and batteries.

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 25 Jun 2016 16:49

since the brahmos has inertial guidance for most part and switches to radar/satellite guidance in terminal phase, can its air-launched version be used as an ARM?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2016 16:49

Folks please think for a few sec about museum that had a two skulls on display of a famous man, a small one and a big one. The small skull was from when the man was a child.

There will not be 2 versions of Nag one for 11AM to 3 PM and another 3-01 PM to 10-59 AM. The 4 km missile will not be recommended for use when the ambient temperature is very high - in fact the target may be invisible to the seeker

From Wiki

The NAMICA version of the missile is a 'lock-on before launch' system, where the target is identified and designated before the missile is launched. As the targeting system is based on visual identification, the range is limited. The HELINA version on the other hand will use a 'lock-on after launch' system extending its range to 7 km. In this scenario, the missile is launched in the general direction of the target. As it approaches the target, images of the area ahead are sent back to the operator who will be able to identify enemy tanks. The command to lock on to a tank is then passed onto the seeker through an uplink mid-flight. After that, the missile homes in onto the target and destroys it

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2016 16:52

malushahi wrote:since the brahmos has inertial guidance for most part and switches to radar/satellite guidance in terminal phase, can its air-launched version be used as an ARM?

As far as my knowledge goes an ARM can either have a passive seeker that waits for a radar signal which it locks on to to attack the radar, or it can be "any missile" that is guided to a pinpoint radar target that is located by other means. I am certain that Brahmos can play the latter role.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Jun 2016 17:22

Note no Serial number visible Su-tees. So HAL has hidden which batch was modified for this.

The AAMs seem to be dummy articles of R-27ER. She will have enough oomph to carry Brahmos as well as AAMs for domination.

The missile is quite snug on the airframe due to proximity to the landing gear.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jun 2016 17:37

From my post from Aug-2015
viewtopic.php?p=1884347#p1884347

The tests were carried out for nine configurations, including clean configuration, with bombs (2 tons) at station 1 & 2 (centerline of the aircraft), with BrahMos missile at the newly-developed station 13, R-27 missiles at station 3-6, R-73 missiles at station 7-10 and SAP518 pod (ECM jamming pod) at station 11-12. "The preliminary results show good agreement between natural frequencies of clean aircraft and design values. These are ongoing tests and are complex in nature. Multiple agencies are involved in the project and we are confident of achieving the tasks within the set targets," Tyagi said. The National Aerospace Laboratories too recently conducted extensive wind tunnel experiments (separation tests) to monitor the health of the aircraft, after BrahMos missile is released.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jun 2016 17:38

shiv wrote:
rohitvats wrote: symptomatic of how we create reference plane using our limited knowledge and pass judgement by evaluating actions in that limited reference plain.

If the enemy tank is not even on APU and is fully idle and baked in for many hours in summer heat then how is it a threat? How is the enemy crew surviving?
There is Amriki hawa in that post - AFAIK this is the second post I am seeing about tanks with APU running. I would be happy to be corrected but American info-blasting is so heavy that people are talking of tank APUs. Only Abrams tanks with gas turbine engines use an APU. All other tanks have standard internal combustion engines that start with motors and batteries.

Shivji, Arjun has an APU as well, and IA is scouting for APUs for T-series.

APUs as you'd know, allow for cold oversight, basically you can run your TI and turret but keep fuel use minimization with engine off.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jun 2016 17:42

Even the Brahmos looks like Baby when attached to MKI though a big baby , Any one having been near Brahmos knows its a big missile

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 25 Jun 2016 17:42

In the pic Singha has posted, no mention of either Prahaar or Nirbhay. Of course, both are still developmental projects. A question out of curiosity, what is holding up further testing of Prahaar? It was supposed to be tested in 2nd week of July per this news article.
India to test fire Prahaar next week

Days after India cleared the hurdles for its entry into the elite Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is all set to go for a crucial test of surface-to-surface highly maneuverable tactical ballistic missile Prahaar.

"While the first one has been scheduled for June 14, the second one will be on June 16. The test window, however, is from June 14-17. If everything goes as per planned and weather favours, the missile will be test fired as per the schedule," said a defence official.

[Speculation alert] Was the test put on hold to see the outcome India's fate from the NSG meet?[/spec alert]

Could not find any follow up articles of the test as well as its outcome. Also, what is going on with Nirbhay? Chaiwallah reports from BRF members last year mentioned the program was on do or die situation. Since no new news, I guess it is officially on its death knell?

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 25 Jun 2016 17:44

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jun 2016 17:45

shiv wrote:
malushahi wrote:since the brahmos has inertial guidance for most part and switches to radar/satellite guidance in terminal phase, can its air-launched version be used as an ARM?
As far as my knowledge goes an ARM can either have a passive seeker that waits for a radar signal which it locks on to to attack the radar, or it can be "any missile" that is guided to a pinpoint radar target that is located by other means. I am certain that Brahmos can play the latter role.

AFAIK Brahmos has Active/Passive seeker , in active jamming mode it would just switch over to Lock on Jam , Converting it to ARM would be a question of SW changes but Seeker can be band specifc too so Passive seeker on brahmos may not offer Broadband capability as it is not desiged for ARM role.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jun 2016 17:49

malushahi wrote:since the brahmos has inertial guidance for most part and switches to radar/satellite guidance in terminal phase, can its air-launched version be used as an ARM?

It can be used for SEAD/DEAD but it does not have a passive seeker to passively track radars. However, if the IAF/DRDO work out how to use this pod (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg) and use it to feed coordinates into the INS - bearing if not range, and use it to attack targets, then yes an ARM sort of role is possible. However, without triangulation getting acccurate range estimates is not that easy & the Brahmos may not be the right missile to attack targets which are not preidentified when you have missiles like this in the IAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-59) which is guided to the target by a WSO. On the flip side, its slower (Brahmos is 3M).
IMHO, its better to use a missile purpose designed for the task like NGARM

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2016 17:51

Prem Kumar wrote:The inability of the IIR seeker to detect a hot tank against a hot background at 4 Km is not new. That's the reason for Sofradir. It looks like even that is not upto scratch. Which means that the specs are probably unobtanium.

This is not some "new revelation". The only "new" part was that Christopher spelled out what the problem is, in a little more detail than before.

Nag has gone & continues to go the Arjun way.

News is not new sir. In fact earlier reports mentioned the same problem. Only those whose has poor understanding of the subject like rohitvat's observation above, says it is "new". Only added fact is DRDO Chief mentioned the time period (i.e., between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.). That is the only new thing.

Further, in my opinion the reporter doesnt capture or represent full details. So lets wait.

Just to reiterate, this decrease is only for Phase-I, Phase-II is supposed to be meeting all requirements. As I see it, they still need time to work with new (Sofradir) seeker array, that's why Phase-II and they are requesting for acceptance of Nag with earlier seeker which met targets at reduced range or something like that.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Jun 2016 18:00

That also during summer and in the desert. So pretty much like Astra or other missiles we can go ahead in Phases. And who knows by Phase-III we may have a Nag missile with the ability to shoot a mouse at 10km range.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2016 18:06

Arun Menon wrote:^Helina can be lock-on-after-launch also, right?

Another stupid question - even if it is mid day in the desert heat, an active tank with a running engine will be hotter right? So, is this noon time range limitation only applicable to stationary tanks running on a secondary power source or something like that?

As far as my knowledge goes, they simulate various scenarios, all possible conditions. Tank with engine switched off, engine in idle, APU on, engine off like that in all peak(high and low) and transient temp & climate. Scenarios include not only a single tank but with group of tanks and also they stimulate various background scenarios, like riverbed, grass land etc.

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Jun 2016 18:13

I think it is time to close the Nag program. We can't have a missile that won't work in 100% of the cases. We should buy PARS3 LR which for the same weight has almost twice the range. Its IR sensors will work at 7km range even in desert sun at noon. I can't believe that DRDO is foisting a "minimum viable product" approach for development projects.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Jun 2016 18:18

Assuming Brahmos-A can be launched at 0.8 Mach from say 4Km altitude. Dont tell me the max range will be same as a ground launched missile.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 25 Jun 2016 18:30

The missiles can all have 290km range officially just to be on safer side. It's not like we have to give details on demand.

On serious note, what's wrong with 3:01 p.m. to 10:59 a.m. or 11am to 3pm for that matter; in fact enemy tanks aren't going to be fighting only that much thusly from afar especially. USA gave 1000 TOWs to pakis IIRC and no one asked a thing. Pakis stole night vision goggles from NATO trucks and no one said a word either.

What with totally indigenous seeker, one way is to produce 100K of mk-1/2/3 and Helina, gift some 10k or so to Afghans/Vietnam and then talk 11:00am-3:00pm.

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Jun 2016 18:36

A big win for HAL for Brahmos. I love it that they have become more daring http://www.oneindia.com/india/40-sukhoi ... 37113.html

HAL said its Nashik Division took up the challenge of creating all necessary data without any assistance from the Original Equipment Manufacturer - the Irkut Corporation.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2016 18:40

^ Good one to highlight & celebrate!

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 25 Jun 2016 19:05

Karan M wrote:
malushahi wrote:since the brahmos has inertial guidance for most part and switches to radar/satellite guidance in terminal phase, can its air-launched version be used as an ARM?
It can be used for SEAD/DEAD but it does not have a passive seeker to passively track radars. However, if the IAF/DRDO work out how to use this pod (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg) and use it to feed coordinates into the INS - bearing if not range, and use it to attack targets, then yes an ARM sort of role is possible. However, without triangulation getting acccurate range estimates is not that easy & the Brahmos may not be the right missile to attack targets which are not preidentified when you have missiles like this in the IAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-59) which is guided to the target by a WSO. On the flip side, its slower (Brahmos is 3M).
IMHO, its better to use a missile purpose designed for the task like NGARM

will the pod-integrated product work in a dense AD environment where a fair portion of AD nodes are static (fixed co-ords. can range can also be fixed via launch-point positioning?)

again, is it within present capability to quickly (1-2 years?) bootstrap something like this?

http://www.google.com/patents/US6806823

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2016 19:32

Arun Menon wrote:The question is how many foreign missiles can do what IA asked for.

uddu wrote:Not even one.
Even today there will be no missile that can do what Nag can do.

Gill belongs to Spike Family of missiles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /spike.htm

The Gil has two variants: Gil (Short Spike) with a range of 2.5 km, and the Spike with a range of 4 km. The conversion from one version to the other can be done in the base armory, by adding a fiber optic wire dispenser to the Gil as well as few other adjustments.

On a clear day, the Spike's maximum range is 4km. At night or in poor weather, the maximum range is reduced to 3km.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Jun 2016 19:44

Even those 3km are brochure claims. If tested in similar conditions in which Nag is tested, that's blistering summer with a tank kept there in the sun and the surroundings pretty hot and matching the tank skin, i'm pretty sure they will all fail and even will not detect the presence of a tank, forget about kms even less than a km will be a big challenge.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Jun 2016 20:05

Why fight a tank battle at 1 pm hain ji? At that time with the desert heat in the summers, the tank crew will be likely getting cooked themselves. Poor Pakis have really crappy tanks anyways, they sleep under them during the afternoons.
The helina's can hunt and clean them out at dusk easily.
Holefully with hundreds of attack helos deployed, there won't be a repeat of a longewala situation, where 120 men have to hold off 5000 troops and 100 odd tanks, and it takes ages for reinforcements to arrive, or to wait for daybreak. Now hopefully half a dozen attack helos will do a quick divert and clean up the mess very quickly

2. I was wondering the same thing as Austin. B'mos range is probably 600km +
Does India need to advertize this?

3. HAL is modifying 40 MKIs to carry B'mos. Are these SFC MKIs?
Is B'mos delivering DRDO's physics packages?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Jun 2016 20:07

Nag's range is prolly better than the export version that IA hopes to acquire from videsh

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jun 2016 20:13

malushahi wrote:will the pod-integrated product work in a dense AD environment where a fair portion of AD nodes are static (fixed co-ords. can range can also be fixed via launch-point positioning?)

IMHO static nodes will be easier to detect, because after most AD networks will have to make do with limited # of long range radars to cue their SAMs. its the moving radars which are always a pain, but anyhow, range fixing (including geolocation) was meant to be part of our AEW&C and presumably, Phalcons also have it. of course, the Su-30s are more flexible (as versus limited # of AWACs).

the priority for the ARM guys will be the FCRs though. the pod will give bearing cues and it was designed to work with the Kh-31 on the Su-30 MKI (your guess as good as mine as we managed to get our Kh-31s fixed, they had teething issues). Russians are now offering Kh-31 PDs with "improved seeker" and wider envelope, but yet to be seen whether IAF has ordered any.

Also IAF has this on order:

Himraj
The role of the Himraj is to intercept, monitor, analyse, and locate adversary’s radar transmission
in 70 MHz to 40 GHz band. DRDO is responsible for the system design, development of critical subsystems, and realisation of a truncated reference version of the engineered system for Ground Base
Mobile ELINT System (GBMES), which are being pursued towards production at BEL. The entire
system configuration has been finalised and realisation of engineered system is in progress

By the very nature of the system though (ground based), it will be line of sight oriented and will (IMHO) be very useful for airborne system monitoring. Makes me think the DivyDrishti (in service) was a COMINT sort of system.

but basically there are options with IAF or - will be.

again, is it within present capability to quickly (1-2 years?) bootstrap something like this?

http://www.google.com/patents/US6806823

this might well be what DRDO is planning for a NGARM.
per reports it has both a passive seeker and a MMW seeker.

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 25 Jun 2016 20:37

Karan M wrote:this might well be what DRDO is planning for a NGARM.
per reports it has both a passive seeker and a MMW seeker.

is there any stand-off arm (similar to agm-88) in development too?