We are already in to monsoon...dinesha wrote:I hope they resume some testing now.
In terms of compensation our Forces don't need to learn anything sir. We on BRF need to learn. I don't know how it happens in the US for Lockheed etc, but in India, Forces don't control the money. They don't even make the DPP but yes they are one of the parties who have a voice. In matters of Finance, Compensation etc, their voice is not important. Not only for third parties but their own.Aditya_V wrote:I think our forces need to learn, Lockheed Martin etc, when they invest in something like an F-22 or F-35 are assured of compensation no matter what the outcomes are, and more money is thrown to fix problems. Thats why the US has such a good MIC. We need similarly develop our MIC we need our nation to be secure.
In our country it is through the MoD on recommendations of the respective service to be released by MoF. I am at least not aware of any instance of some private sector being compensated for developmental work in India for defence related matters.Aditya_V wrote:Referring to some articles, when any new product is develop it is respective Governments / Forces in various countries which fund the R&D.
nc-nc is still the norm mostly. even the ficv program was to be funded by the govt and then they backed out.deejay wrote:In our country it is through the MoD on recommendations of the respective service to be released by MoF. I am at least not aware of any instance of some private sector being compensated for developmental work in India for defence related matters.Aditya_V wrote:Referring to some articles, when any new product is develop it is respective Governments / Forces in various countries which fund the R&D.
in BRF ? Really !nachiket wrote:He has been back for a while in a different avatar.
^^^basant wrote:BrahMos becomes first desi missile to receive fleet release clearanceBengaluru: BrahMos air launched cruise missile (ALCM) received the first ever fleet release clearance (FRC) issued by the
certifying agency.
The supersonic and advanced ALCM with its proven capabilities for the Indian Air Force (IAF) thereby becomes the first
indigenous weapon to get the critical FRC.
According to military sources, the FRC was granted to BrahMos missile on June 10 during a high-profile meeting of various
stakeholders held through video conferencing.
...
75 Brahmos launches to dateWhat’s FRC?
FRC could be compared to the initial operational clearance (IOC) granted to Tejas. There will be another certification likely in future that will clear the missile for some advanced roles.
...
It is now certain that the missile will be given another round of final clearance after agencies analyse the date being generated from various IAF missions, post FRC.
“There are several factors that will be looked into, including production issues. All the learnings will help to enhance the scope of the missile in future missions of IAF,” an official said.
Similar to the final operational clearance (FOC) granted to Tejas, there will be another type of FRC that will be granted to BrahMos in future.
Since its first mission on June 12, 2001, BrahMos missile saw 26 launches from various Indian Navy platforms, 23 launches for Indian Army and six tests for the IAF.
In addition, there were close to 20 developmental launches as well.
The IAF had added unmatched capability in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) when it inducted the mighty Sukhois (Su-30MKIs) armed with BrahMos ALCMs into the resurrected No 222 Squadron at the Air Force Station (AFS) Thanjavur on January 20 this year.
...
“The IAF pilots have already begun their missions from AFS Thanjavur and more assets will be added to the squadron there. The FRC gives a stamp for the pilots to use these missiles in various modes as per the mission requirements,” an official said.
Haridas-jikit wrote:in BRF ? Really !nachiket wrote:He has been back for a while in a different avatar.
Good to know !!.. thank youVickyAvinash wrote:Haridas-jikit wrote: in BRF ? Really !
Thank you! Should read Agni-V posts againVickyAvinash wrote:Haridas-jikit wrote: in BRF ? Really !
With respect, those missiles would not have been useful at the moment. It's the warheads and the Agni Vs that we need. We don't have MIRV capability, so that should be a priority too.TushS wrote:After Galwan incidence, IMHO India should move towards developing ICBMs of range >10,000 kms. We should give no reason to doubt the enemy that we cannot fire the missiles from our deep south to their deep east.
Totally agree. But ballistic missiles and MIRVs were never used against any nuclear capable nation. Main purpose of these are how much deterrent capabilities one can possess. So adding ICBM capability is just another major deterrence along with having many warheads and more Agni Vs.basant wrote:With respect, those missiles would not have been useful at the moment. It's the warheads and the Agni Vs that we need. We don't have MIRV capability, so that should be a priority too.TushS wrote:After Galwan incidence, IMHO India should move towards developing ICBMs of range >10,000 kms. We should give no reason to doubt the enemy that we cannot fire the missiles from our deep south to their deep east.
MIRVs are a significant deterrence, imagine 10 missiles carrying 5 MIRVS each, the existing Indian arsenal of missiles can saturate Chinese defences and what's left of it. It might be that the latest iteration of Agnis are already MIRV capable and the SLBMs especially so. There will not be much publicity. , but a lot of confidence in our brahmastra.TushS wrote:Totally agree. But ballistic missiles and MIRVs were never used against any nuclear capable nation. Main purpose of these are how much deterrent capabilities one can possess. So adding ICBM capability is just another major deterrence along with having many warheads and more Agni Vs.basant wrote: With respect, those missiles would not have been useful at the moment. It's the warheads and the Agni Vs that we need. We don't have MIRV capability, so that should be a priority too.
Agni being MIRV capable is very different from MIRV achieved. Rest assured, only we (public) don't know if MIRV tech was tested, while all P-5s do. Remember Chinese ability to monitor from Coco islands, ECHELON programme of Five Eyes and regular spying by Pakistan (also supplemented by China). Heck, even Pakistan has recently done an MIRV test!kit wrote:TushS wrote: MIRVs are a significant deterrence, imagine 10 missiles carrying 5 MIRVS each, the existing Indian arsenal of missiles can saturate Chinese defences and what's left of it. It might be that the latest iteration of Agnis are already MIRV capable and the SLBMs especially so. There will not be much publicity. , but a lot of confidence in our brahmastra.
Of course, it is classified, neither I seek that information nor one should share. Having said that we must also note that there are various mechanisms in offense/defense. One is to look harmless and then surprise, like Venus flytrap. Another is to exaggerate one's strength to intimidate the attacker (like aggressive cats) to ward off confrontation. With nukes, it would be not only stupid but could be suicidal to use former approach.amar_p wrote:MIRV is not an issue, since some years. Nuff said.
It makes sense for us to test a MIRVed variant of A-3 and/or A-5 successfully, deploy the same, and state it publicly. The same holds for the K-4. Under the current situation, this is urgently required.amar_p wrote:MIRV is not an issue, since some years. Nuff said.
Mujhey yaad kiya aapnay?basant wrote:Anyone knows what Aurn_S (Arun Vishwakarma) is upto these days. For years I missed his analysis. Remember the hot discussions on the TNE being the contention. It would be great to have him back.
I guess that could help lower the BP for a few people hereHaridas wrote:Mujhey yaad kiya aapnay?basant wrote:Anyone knows what Aurn_S (Arun Vishwakarma) is upto these days. For years I missed his analysis. Remember the hot discussions on the TNE being the contention. It would be great to have him back.
My missile and space pages that I withdrew from BR stay under wrap. If someone willing to help I could put it back in public forum.
., That said doing a MIRV test right now would be a good idea !Those who need to know our about MIRV capability know enough. They don't need to read the press, they have their own sources and research. We don't put an air tight seal on everything so that they don't underestimate us on somethings, but keep them guessing on others.ramdas wrote:It makes sense for us to test a MIRVed variant of A-3 and/or A-5 successfully, deploy the same, and state it publicly. The same holds for the K-4. Under the current situation, this is urgently required.amar_p wrote:MIRV is not an issue, since some years. Nuff said.
Yes sir! I was wondering for a long time. Used to read your posts with great interest. Missed all those analysis!Haridas wrote:Mujhey yaad kiya aapnay?basant wrote:Anyone knows what Aurn_S (Arun Vishwakarma) is upto these days. For years I missed his analysis. Remember the hot discussions on the TNE being the contention. It would be great to have him back.
My missile and space pages that I withdrew from BR stay under wrap. If someone willing to help I could put it back in public forum.
Ditto - happy to helpbasant wrote:Yes sir! I was wondering for a long time. Used to read your posts with great interest. Missed all those analysis!Haridas wrote: Mujhey yaad kiya aapnay?
My missile and space pages that I withdrew from BR stay under wrap. If someone willing to help I could put it back in public forum.
I would be happy to help in anyway to resurrect the pages. It would be great to do something useful in my spare time. Would you be able to do an update on your previous work on Agni-II vs Agni-III with Agni-V? What's your take on 2.5T payload of Agni-III wrt to 1.5T of Agni-V? Your previous simulation results suggested that the former could go as far as latter with 1.5T! I know there were changes such as flex-nozzle, carbon composite stages, etc, but still a comprehensive picture would be great!
Yes. Each one is very different. You cannot even say they are Barak 8. They are not. But derivatives of Barak 8.Karan M wrote:There will be some differences. The IA version seems to indicate an anti BM role too.srai wrote:^^^
Missile is the same: Barak 8
IN LRSAM
IAF MRSAM
IA “MRSAM”
Yes it was indeed mentioned that fixing the seeker could increase the range to 35 km without alteration.mody wrote:As per some reports, it is supposed to increase the range upto 35 Kms with the RF seeker.sudeepj wrote:If the range is not increased by the sensor in 1S, what are the advantages of using that over the last command guided model?
Same Pkill at higher range? Is Pkill calculated for different kind of targets for Army vs Navy?Kanson wrote: IA version curtailed its range to 50 km & so could be highly energetic. Trait useful in anti BM role.
OTOH,
IN version optimised its energy profile & opted for longer range without compromising on Pkill.
Brahmos missile meant for mountains is 'terrain aware'.Nilanjan wrote:As far as i know drdo designed a new high power seeker for akash ng for operation in mountain region,probably it will have of radar capability,which will be nesessary for avoiding terrain obstacles and bel delivered a high power transmitter for this seeker to drdo in the presence of rajnath singh..for akash 1s i have no idea if it will have the same capability...
Yes, their target sets differ. For navy, sea skimnimg supersonic is the prime target.basant wrote: Same Pkill at higher range? Is Pkill calculated for different kind of targets for Army vs Navy?
Where will the be used?hemant_sai wrote:Why army is not opting for truck mounted AK630 in ladakh? I guess we have not yet produced those in numbers?