Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 06 Jun 2012 17:58

Don't we have a supersonic drone named Ulka?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 18:06

Five Akash to Five Hatf. Is this the arms race the world is talking about today?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jun 2012 18:31

PratikDas wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Akash flew at 2.5 Mach and intercepted a target flying at 0.47 Mach.
What will they use to simulate a faster target?
Another Akash rigged to fly a predetermined trajectory?

Akash taking on another akash is excellent idea.. but is akash designed to taken on targets like akash? if yes, way to go!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2012 19:01

koti wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Akash flew at 2.5 Mach and intercepted a target flying at 0.47 Mach.
What will they use to simulate a faster target?
Older stocks of Moskit?
Or Styx perhaps?

Probably a towed target using Lakshya?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Jun 2012 19:17

Defence experts have often compared Akash missile system with the American MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile system.

PAC 2 is designed for anti ballistic missile defense. Should it not be tested against a Prithvi type of missile then also to be claimed an equivalent of PAC-2? The old MIM 104 A was designed against aircraft, but the MIM-104C is an ABM. Probably comparing with the older version.

John · Post by **John** » 06 Jun 2012 19:34

Akash has very little in common with Patroit other than use of passive phased array radar, later uses track via missile guidance where as Akash is ramjet missile with command guidance.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 Jun 2012 19:48

koti wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Akash flew at 2.5 Mach and intercepted a target flying at 0.47 Mach.
What will they use to simulate a faster target?
Older stocks of Moskit?
Or Styx perhaps?

We never had Moski.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Jun 2012 19:55

live firing has to be against towed targets by lakshya

they can do simulated acquire, lock and firings against Mig 23s

since they are zippy its quite a challenge.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2012 21:44

PratikDas wrote:
indranilroy wrote:It is much more difficult to intercept a slow highly maneuverable target than a supersonic target which cannot change directions quickly and hence continues on a predictable path.

If I am not wrong, they do tests against simulated electronic targets for maneuvers which cannot be emulated.
I don't doubt anything you've said. You're usually on the money But to add to what you've said, what about a supersonic target which CAN change directions quickly, like the Brahmos? If we can kill that, we can kill anything, even a Babur confused about its orientation. Am I right?

Thank you for the compliment

.

When they say Brahmos is highly maneuverable, they mean relatively to its class. Brahmos would be doing 3 -4 major maneuvers for say a top-attack profile. Most other maneuvers will be continuous adjustments to hit a moving target like a ship. But can it change directions like a plane in an airshow? Also missiles have a very predictable path, a pilot in a plane can choose from a combination of evasive maneuvers.

Having said that, intercepting Brahmos will be incredibly difficult because of the incredibly small reaction time that it provides. Taking out a Brahmos class of missile would probably need a layered approach of MRSAM and LRSAM.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2012 21:59

taking out supersonic missiles can be done using a more distributed network of SAM launchers so that chosen interceptor missile is flying nearly head on and not in a tail chase or crossing situation.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 22:09

One option to spur innovation would be to organize regularly shoot-outs between the shield arm and the sword arm to determine the top dog within DRDO.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jun 2012 22:10

koti wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Akash flew at 2.5 Mach and intercepted a target flying at 0.47 Mach.
What will they use to simulate a faster target?
Older stocks of Moskit?
Or Styx perhaps?

For supersonic drones, DRDO could revive the Trishul SAM since it was designed and tested on a wide range of flight profiles, including sea skimming at 5m above waves. It will be small and fast like a stealthy F-22 supercruising through the skies.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jun 2012 05:10

Singha wrote:taking out supersonic missiles can be done using a more distributed network of SAM launchers so that chosen interceptor missile is flying nearly head on and not in a tail chase or crossing situation.

Akash is not a active guided missile so its performance against supersonic missiles will be limited (small RCS). SPYDER will be better suited for this role.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jun 2012 05:39

^ Sir active guidance helps when you are engaging highly maneuverable targets which might break the lock of ground based radar by getting behind a natural feature like a hill just get out of LoS (example supersonic aircraft), but in case the incoming bogey is a missile which has a fixed target and interception will be done during the incoming missile's terminal phase i.e. there is not much room for maneuvering at least not for a supersonic missile then command guidance should suffice; in fact for short to medium range AD missiles the radar return from a small RCS target will be far more when illuminated by a bigger , powerful and more capable radar like Rajendra vs a smaller onboard radar which will make sense for medium to long range engagements when target is too far from the grond based radar and fire and forget solution is required.

Even the early blocks of Patriot and S300 were using TVM which by all means is more closer to command guidance than active guidance for all heavy lifting is being done by the ground based Radar system.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jun 2012 05:51

Negi the situation you just mentioned about obstruction from natural feature is why active seeker is needed for intercepting low level targets in urban area (not to mention limitation of radar horizon greatly reducing reaction time), chance of guidance radar failing to track the target due to obstruction from a building is very high and few second delay could greatly reduce intercept probability against super sonic missiles'. In fact IIRC during gulf war 2 there was one incident where A-10 or low flying target was being tracked by SA-2 and radar system lost track of the target due to a building and the missile ended up self destructing on top of a market square. Even newer iterations of S-300 and Patroit have away from TVM due to those limitations. IMO layered air defense system with SPYDER and Barak-8/LRSAM with its network centeric features and active guidance should give us better capability than PAC-3.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jun 2012 06:04

John wrote:Negi the situation you just mentioned about obstruction from natural feature is why active seeker is needed for intercepting low level targets in urban area, chance of guidance radar failing to track the target due to obstruction from a building is very high and few second delay could greatly reduce intercept probability against super sonic missiles'.

Sir a supersonic missile won't be zig zagging between high rise buildings for two reasons '1' it is simply too fast to do that and '2' it's own radar will loose sight of the target which it is supposed to engage.

I presume you are referring to a problem where a building obstructs the scan area of the ground based Radar which imho is a trivial issue since it will be taken into consideration when AD system is installed.

In fact IIRC during gulf war 2 there was one incident where A-10 or low flying target was being tracked by SA-2 and radar system lost track of the target due to a building and the missile ended up self destructing on top of a market square. Even newer iterations of S-300 and Patroit have away from TVM due to those limitations.

A-10 is an AC which I did clarify in my post and it's much more maneuverable than a typical supersonic missile.
I am not saying that Akash is state of the art by today's standards , what I am saying is systems like Sea Dart, Hawk and Patriot early blocks were all command/SARH/TVM and they did pretty good in war.

Regarding PAC-III and new block of S300 moving to active homing well it could be for various reasons like need to engage various types of threats over medium to long distances, Akash is not meant to do that it is relatively a short ranged missile .

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jun 2012 06:35

negi wrote:Sir a supersonic missile won't be zig zagging between high rise buildings for two reasons '1' it is simply too fast to do that and '2' it's own radar will loose sight of the target which it is supposed to engage.

I am not sure what missile are you talking about, but if it is Brahmos' yes it does perform zig zag or various other maneuvers' during it terminal flight (as does Moskit or Granit). And besides even if it flies a straight path there is always a good chance of something obstructing the target. Off topic but one of the main reasons PAC-3 has active seeker was due to that and Raytheon even notes the limitation i mentioned as the reason why PAC-3 is superior to Patriot. Anyway it is moot point unless Akash speed is increased it's performance against something like Brahmos will be severely limited, which actually has higher top speed at sea level than Akash.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2012 06:37

it would be rather more effective to counter brahmos type of missile with beam weapons.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jun 2012 06:42

IMO i think mixture of airborne radar detection platform like Aerostat with SPYDER/LR SAM/AAD could effectively counter it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jun 2012 07:06

John wrote: I am not sure what missile are you talking about, but if it is Brahmos' yes it does perform zig zag or various other maneuvers' during it terminal flight (as does Moskit or Granit).

Sir all of the above were essentially designed as AShM, out there in the sea you can carry out pre-programmed movements in the terminal phase something which cannot happen in an Urban environment at least not at a height below high rise structures, you raised the point about an engagement scenario in an urban area where an incoming bogey might break Radar lock because it might get behind a building based on Gulf war incident involving a A-10 which in the first place is rather inappropriate, for '1' A-10 is far more slower than a supersonic missile, '2' There is human element involved with A-10 where pilot is basically 'responding' to a Radar lock by trying to disengage and trying to get a building between him and the Radar this is something which a supersonic missile is not capable of it's evasive maneuvers are pre-programmed and even if it has such intelligence it cannot pull it off at a height below high rise buildings at Mach 2.5+.

Off topic but one of the main reasons PAC-3 has active seeker was due to that and Raytheon even notes the limitation i mentioned as the reason why PAC-3 is superior to Patriot.

Patriot to start with was concieved to engage SRBMs or TBMs however PAC-III can also engage AC and slow moving cruise missiles hence the need for active seeker .

Anyway it is moot point unless Akash speed is increased it's performance against something like Brahmos will be severely limited, which actually has higher top speed at sea level than Akash.

Akash's top speed might be just around Mach 2.5 but catch is unlike solid propelled missiles it is powered throughout it's flight envelope , moreover typical engagement will be head on or from the side not tail chase like in case of highly maneuvering targets that can choose to disengage when painted.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jun 2012 07:41

The biggest problem against Brahmos types imvho is v.low reaction time afforded to the SAM system. If the supersonic missile can fly low enough and has a decently treated RCS, detection/response time window might not be enough for SAMs like Akash or for that matter, most SAM systems. Early detection is the key, layered defences or not.

If the Brahmos is launched from a short distance of about 120-150km, it will fly low level for that entire phase and do it rather fast too, making detection/response v.difficult.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jun 2012 07:43

The engagement zone varies for every SAM system relative to the target flight profile (speed, range, direction, height and maneuver).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 09:28

supports my stmt that more distributed the shooters the better because head on engagement is best in terms of relative displacement and tracking.
that way Akash is good, as it can be spread over a 50kmx50km box with many radars as well but controlled by one brain. it can protect a big city.
Spyder brain is smaller and it can control fewer number of batteries as befits a point defence system.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 07 Jun 2012 12:22

Akash says that it has a radio proximity fuse with advanced signal processing and how is it different from TVM in patriot.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2012 12:59

prabhug wrote:Akash says that it has a radio proximity fuse with advanced signal processing and how is it different from TVM in patriot.

Proximity fuse is used to detonate the warhead if either the missile or target pass near each other.

Based on my discussion with SOC this is what i gathered on different form of guidance

Akash has command guidance , the ground radar which is rajendra in this case , tracks the target and passes the guidance to the missile via data link. The Akash does not have any seeker of its own and it depends solely on Rajendra for guidance from start to the end.

Patriot SAM uses TVM method for guidance in tvm which is sort of a cross breed between Command guidance of Akash and SARH guidance, the missile seeker antenna acts as a receiver, picking up reflected energy from the target. Target position data is then datalinked to the engagement radar, which crunches the numbers and decides where to point the missile to keep chasing the target. guidance commands then get datalinked back to the missile, and off it goes

A more evolved form of TVM guidance which is SAGG is used by S-300PMU2 and S-400 missile in SAGG which is Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance. is a bit more complicated, and potentially more accurate as a result. In SAGG, the engagement radar paints the target, and both the missile and the radar receive target returns. The missile actually computes a guidance command, and datalinks this to the radar. The radar, having a different POV, computes its own guidance command. Then the computers crunch the numbers, comparing the two sets of commands, and decides the best course to the target. This final guidance command is then sent back to the missile. In SAGG, you basically have smarter missiles. This is also a sort of ECCM, in a way. If a jamming pod is pointed at the engagement radar, confusing its perception of the engagement, the option exists to ignore that return, and rely solely on the missile seeker head's return to calculate the guidance command.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 07 Jun 2012 13:15

Austin To put it in simple terms Akash missile would not talk to the tracking radar back.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 07 Jun 2012 13:17

Singha wrote:taking out supersonic missiles can be done using a more distributed network of SAM launchers so that chosen interceptor missile is flying nearly head on and not in a tail chase or crossing situation.

Hmm. It depends. For a very high speed target, to ensure higher KP what you want is the relative velocity to go down as much as possible. A head-on attack means that any evasive action by the target leaves little time for the attacking missile to react. OTOH if you can fly in a near parallel vector to the target they can literally hug.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 13:47

but that would need good sustained supersonic endurance from a small SAM going after a potentially big missile.
missiles pretty much all of them have no RWR or detector to know they are being painted by ground based or SAM nose radar , so evasive action would not be situational but programmed manouvers. with any luck it wont jink at crucial moment.

key thing is early warning and fast missile to be in right place at right time. the hard DASS guided manouvering a manned fighter will do to break off contact wont be a issue with missiles.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jun 2012 13:52

Tail chase sequences are no no for intercepting missiles that kind of stuff only happens in movies (remember the sequence from behind enemy lines, and then we make fun of Bollywood movies )

Most of the interceptors out there are powered by solid fuel i.e. they engage the target when the last stage is already coasting there is no time for all that tail chasing and hugging.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 13:57

the current Akash looks perfectly adequate for 95% of current target set and weaponry release modes(A2G munitions will be released at subsonic speeds by manned platform). being ramjet it is powered for a longer time and will give manned fighters a hard chase. its big 60KG warhead will ensure even a detonation 20m away will still perforate and damage anything in a cloud of shrapnel. 60kg of RDX will take apart a typical tech park building methinks with its flimsy internal walls and cubes.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 07 Jun 2012 15:02

Singha wrote:60kg of RDX will take apart a typical tech park building methinks with its flimsy internal walls and cubes.

60 Kg is the total warhead weight, It won't have more than 20-25 Kgs of explosive.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 15:07

what would be the remainder - ball bearings and casing?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 07 Jun 2012 16:05

Explosives surrounded by tungsten alloy cubes and casing.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 07 Jun 2012 21:58

^^^^^
You know, of all the applications for explosives, arguably a ground-to-air missile system like the AKASH is where BANG really matters.

This is where you'd use ICL-20 instead of RDX (which is PETN at 70-85%).

I remember reading on the BRF newsfeed that HEMRL (I think that's the acronym) had synthesized CL-20, and was going to start producing it with the "I" prefix (for "India").

>>>>> Just did some Googling and found this.......

DRDO lab develops powerful explosive "CL-20" (MUST-READ ARTICLE on warhead explosives development)
http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-lab-d ... /1/10.html

^^^
This article also indicates that RDX is not used in the Indian armoury on warheads.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 07 Jun 2012 22:09

Directional warhead should increase lethality with smaller explosive weights as well. Might be good if used.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jun 2012 22:53

negi wrote: Sir all of the above were essentially designed as AShM, out there in the sea you can carry out pre-programmed movements in the terminal phase something which cannot happen in an Urban environment at least not at a height below high rise structures, you raised the point about an engagement scenario in an urban area where an incoming bogey might break Radar lock because it might get behind a building based on Gulf war incident involving a A-10 which in the first place is rather inappropriate, for '1' A-10 is far more slower than a supersonic missile, '2' There is human element involved with A-10 where pilot is basically 'responding' to a Radar lock by trying to disengage and trying to get a building between him and the Radar this is something which a supersonic missile is not capable of it's evasive maneuvers are pre-programmed and even if it has such intelligence it cannot pull it off at a height below high rise buildings at Mach 2.5+.

Even in land attack profile Brahmos performs manuveurs the Brahmos video clearly states' that. Also the incident involving A-10 or whatever target SA-2 was engaging (other reports state it was missile no one knows) shows the folly using a command guided against low flying target.

Akash's top speed might be just around Mach 2.5 but catch is unlike solid propelled missiles it is powered throughout it's flight envelope , moreover typical engagement will be head on or from the side not tail chase like in case of highly maneuvering targets that can choose to disengage when painted.

That is incorrect akash is actually burning a solid propellant powder (not a liquid fueled missile like Brahmos) and the motors' burn time is around 20 seconds about the same as solid fueled missile of that range, after which the missile simply coasts.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jun 2012 23:52

John wrote:Even in land attack profile Brahmos performs manuveurs the Brahmos video clearly states' that.

How many maneuvers do you think Brahmos would be undertaking in its flight? And what would be the acuteness of those maneuvers. I know for sure that fighter planes when flying supersonic don't undertake more than 12 (may be 15) degrees AoA and <5Gs. There is just too much momentum when flying at that speeds to make any sharp changes in direction.

John wrote: That is incorrect akash is actually burning a solid propellant powder (not a liquid fueled missile like Brahmos) and the motors' burn time is around 20 seconds about the same as solid fueled missile of that range, after which the missile simply coasts.

I remember reading reports where Dr. Prahlada categorically said that it is powered through its entire flight.
link

Mr. Prahlada said Akash had three unique features. First, it can engage multiple targets. A single battery can simultaneously engage four targets. Second, by using ram-jet propulsion, it thrusts all the way till it meets the target. "The speed will never drop. So you are able to maintain superiority over the target. Even the Patriot missile does not have ram-jet propulsion. The Patriot missile, after its boost phase, keeps decelerating but Akash does not decelerate," he said.

The DRDO page on Akash also says the same.

Its integral Ram Rocket propulsion provides all the way thrusting to a range of 25-30 km with a velocity of 600-700m/s from 1.5 km onwards. The Ram jet system enables powered intercept, high maneuverability, much higher terminal velocities, high average speed, lesser reaction time, lower flight time and better engagements of receeder targets vis-à-vis boost coast type of missiles. It also has wider no escape zones.

We should probably read this.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 07 Jun 2012 23:55

Is there any Indian involvement or contribution to the liquid propulsion system of Brahmos, mentioned a few postings above? It is known that there is a significant Indian imprint on the avionics and software of Brahmos.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jun 2012 00:00

indranilroy wrote:We should probably read this.

Carlo Kopp has detail breakdown of SA-6 ramjet engine. Just pointing out that the burn duration of ramjet engine is about the same as solid fueled missile like 9m38 (burn time of around 15-20 seconds as well and much higher speed). So even the latter can reach the target while the booster is still active. But if engagement runs longer than 20 secs it will have to coast.

The aft fuselage contains the annular solid propellant first stage booster, with a launch mass of ~172 kg and a length of 1.7 metres, using VIK-2 propellant. The igniter initiates a burn along the central 5.4 cm dia. cavity. The engine has burn duration of about 3 to 6 seconds and accelerates the missile from 0 to ~ Mach 1.5. Once the booster has burned out, it becomes the combustion chamber / nozzle for the solid propellant rocket ramjet. Four symmetrically placed air inlets feed into this chamber. Frangible fibreglass covers are used to prevent air ingestion prior to sustainer ignition.

The centre fuselage contains the gas generator fuel charge for the solid propellant ramjet operation. The 9D16K sustainer solid gas generator charge comprising 67 kg of LK-6TM reducing propellant is ignited and the hot gas discharge vents into the combustion chamber, where it is mixed with air to burn and generate sustainer thrust. Burn duration is ~20 seconds, during which the missile accelerates to a peak velocity of ~2.8 Mach. Russian sources claim that the sustainer cannot be throttled and as a result this limits choices in missile trajectories.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jun 2012 02:00

Why should we equate Akash's propulsion to SA-6 just because they both use solid Ramjet?

Akash uses a different propellant from HEMRL. link

INTEGRAL RAM ROCKET (IRR) PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Fuel-efficient air breathing propulsion system was developed exclusively for Project Akash. IRR propulsion system provides powered range right up to target intercept enabling high maneuverability and tail chase capability unlike solid rockets.

Following subsystems were developed ab initio for realizing IRR propulsion system.
- Light weight, high pressure rocket motors using indigenous maraging steel, an indigenous high strength alloy steel.
- Secondary chamber liner / thermal protection system using carbon phenolic fiber.
- Composite propellant booster grain in free standing configuration.
- A special grain with variable burn rates was developed and productionised at OF, Itarsi which is also specific to Akash & application.
- Air intakes and caps are designed for ramjet application.

The IRR propulsion system is first in the country & it has potential application for long range air launched missile systems for air-to-air and air-to ground role. Not many countries have worked in the complex area of ramjet propulsion

Our BR page gives simlar details about Akash's propulsion system

The Akash uses an integral ramjet rocket propulsion system to give a low-volume, low-weight (700 kg launch weight) missile configuration, and has a low reaction time - from detection to missile launch - of 15 seconds. This allows the missile to carry a heavier warhead (60 kg). The solid-propellant booster accelerates the missile in 4.5 seconds to Mach 1.5, which is then jettisoned and the ramjet motor is then ignited for 30 seconds to Mach 2.8 - 3.5 at 20g. Akash has a range of 27 km, with an effective ceiling of 15 km.

Forgetting about the boost phase, at 2.5 Mach and 30 seconds, Akash would have covered 25.5 kms. That is entire range of the missile (as the folks from DRDO have been telling us).