Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 00:25

looks like VLS on SSKs isn't a must, by insisting on such requirement the induction timeline is getting delayed

member_23651 · Post by **member_23651** » 23 Sep 2012 01:44

slightly old but interesting discussion...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzTgX9Iap5Q[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzTgX9Iap5Q

John · Post by **John** » 23 Sep 2012 01:57

nakul wrote:If they can launch K15 from a VLS, a SAM would be much lighter anyday. I think the short range version that is going to be launched from submarines will be light and have a powerful seeker. Unlike land based SAMs, the submarine lacks a guidance radar. So only when the target is near & threatening, the launch will be executed. Think of a do or die situation because a submarine will be loath to give away its position

Not sure i understand what you are saying you are talking about submarine launched SAM? Kilo's carry strela missile but why would submarine even need one and besides' it cannot detect a passing aircraft unless it was snorkeling or surfaced.

nakul wrote:If the Klub can be torpedo launched, so is the Brahmos capable of it. AFAIK, they have only used VLS for underwater launches. That is why their insistence on using VLS. On the other hand, IN wants them to develop a torpedo tuube launched version.

As i said before unlike Klub Brahmos/Oniks is of larger diameter and can only be fired from 24inch torpedo tubes. Also Brahmos was designed to be canistered when it is manufactured, so the whole idea was land, navy and submarine launched variants will use the same missile simplify cost and maintenance. But this won't work for torpedo launch so this will take away one of major advantages of the system.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Sep 2012 06:31

Lots of strange ideas floating around.
For a icbm there is no option but to leave water immediately and hope no mpa is prowling around.
For a asm or slcm off a torp tube there could be a exocet style module to move it away from launch platform before breaking surface.....

We are a good way from k4 and nirbhay slcm launch though

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 08:10

Earlier there was discussion about smaller IN vessels not being equipped with Brahmos vertical launch system since their floor isn't strong enough to handle the hot launch reaction force, so a torpedo kind of cold launch should get around that problem

A scenario is desi air borne sensors or Naval ships detect enemy MPA and communicate that to an air command which zeroes on the target and its general coordinates are sent to a OTH radar which re-transmits them to a sub in the general vicinity or through Satcom, the sub launches a torpedized K-100 ultra long range SAM with LOBL info towards the MPA, any mid course updates are provided by Satcom, could establish no fly zones around enemy coastal areas

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 11:07

Not sure i understand what you are saying you are talking about submarine launched SAM? Kilo's carry strela missile but why would submarine even need one and besides' it cannot detect a passing aircraft unless it was snorkeling or surfaced

SSKs do have to surface for air. When on surface, they are incredibly vulnerable to planes. Hence, the need for SAM.

As i said before unlike Klub Brahmos/Oniks is of larger diameter and can only be fired from 24inch torpedo tubes. Also Brahmos was designed to be canistered when it is manufactured, so the whole idea was land, navy and submarine launched variants will use the same missile simplify cost and maintenance. But this won't work for torpedo launch so this will take away one of major advantages of the system.

That is the whole idea. It wasn't meant to be torpedo launched. But a VLS gives away the submarine's location on launch. A torpedo launch will cover some distance underwater before surfacing which will not give away the submarine's location.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 11:12

Its a need vs usage scenarios. For nuke tipped SLBMs, you are probably flattening multiple cities and killing millions. They have to clear the water quickly and deliver their bombs ASAP over thousands of miles.

On the other hand, IN is planning for more mundane scenarios. Delivering a conventional munition is not armageddon and hence, it is not worth revealing the location of the submarine. Conventional missiles should therefore be launched from torpedo tubes that mask the sub's location. OTOH, a surfaced submarine will be at high risk of being intercepted. In such a situation where its location is already known, using a VLS won't pose any additional risk. Hence SAMs which would be used when the submarine is protecting itself could use VLS.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 23 Sep 2012 11:55

nakul wrote: That is the whole idea. It wasn't meant to be torpedo launched. But a VLS gives away the submarine's location on launch. A torpedo launch will cover some distance underwater before surfacing which will not give away the submarine's location.

With all due respect Sir, how much distance would a torpedo launch system cover, before surfacing. Probably a 20-50m, not more than that. Even if it covers 1-2 km, which not any known system does currently IIRC, then also anyone would know that there is a sub present, send an MPA/ASW helicopter and start pinging.

So, I think whether a missile is launched using VLS or TT launched, if someone is watching the location of sub is known.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 12:12

The sub will have to give away its location if it launches an air missile VLS or TT. The difference is that VLS launches from exactly it is fired while TT moves some distance before surfacing. Each has its cons but I think that TT will provide a larger area while VLS will pinpoint the exact location.

There can be the depth factor as well. They might be different max depths at which these launches can take place. The earliest VLS worked on the surface. I don't know whether the current VLS can match torpedo launch depths.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 Sep 2012 12:15

US refuses Tot and Evaluation by Indian Experts for Javelin ATGM

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 23 Sep 2012 12:38

karan_mc wrote:US refuses Tot and Evaluation by Indian Experts for Javelin ATGM

I don't understand. FMS sales don't come with ToT, right? I haven't seen any FMS deal notification that included technology transfer. Can someone explain?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Sep 2012 13:03

karan_mc wrote:US refuses Tot and Evaluation by Indian Experts for Javelin ATGM

Sorry but could not help
Any opinion on the above story by those who had been pushing for F-16, F-18 and F-35 for IAF, at least i am waiting to listen

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Sep 2012 13:42

^^^

Why is the IA not asking for a man portable ATGM using the IIR developed for the NAG?

Moreover, whatever happened to the MPNAG project, that was supposedly launched in 2005.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2012 13:53

karan_mc wrote:US refuses Tot and Evaluation by Indian Experts for Javelin ATGM

No surprise there , US had already made clear before hand that there wont be any TOT with regards to Javelin ATGM

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Sep 2012 14:27

Americans are predictable no doubt., you can be sure they will remain the same even after 20 yr ! One should only be concerned only about the equipment that India buys . Grounded Apaches ,hercules etc not good !

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2012 16:35

Its not US fault they made it clear before hand that there wont be major TOT for Javelin deal now if we still go for Javelin and then say we are not getting TOT its our problem.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2012 18:04

at least i am waiting to listen

Thanks. Very kind of you.

* Javelin has been classified under FMS from the start - for its technology
* ANY FMS item, by default, will not participate in any competitive bid. The US Gov may demonstrate, etc, but the FMS article cannot be subjected to trials by the buyer. That is part of the FMS agreement
* ANY FMS item, is also not subject to ToT and the like. That too is part of the agreement
* FMS items are NOT subject to offsets too
* FMS is simple: Govt-to-Govt deal, the US Govt buys and passes item for a fixed fee
* A buyer has the option of approaching the manufacturer in cases where the item is not under FMS - Javelin is under FMS, so that case does not arise

Here is the kicker for THIS deal:
* US Govt made an exception for selling the Javelin specifically to India (in 2010, google and you shall find that article), where it removed the restriction of participating in a competitive bid (Spike from Israel was the competitor). The Javelin was demoed - in India - there are plenty of pictures/youtube out there

So this article brings nothing new to the table. That article should not even have appeared as a valid article.

One more item of interest. WRT India, the manufacturer is open to anything, so is the DoD. I suspect it is the DoState that is the problem here - which is to be expected. One that can and should be handled by the political wing in India. This is not a technical issue.

Finally, it is in the best interest of the US (till at least 2040 or so) to keep those P-8Is/C-70Js/etc in good condition. Check out articles since July 2012 - there could be a LOT more to come - provided India wants the technologies. The arrival will - at best - be graduated. I do not see any other nation that will occupy the status of India within the US DoD (at least until 2040ish). None.

.......................................

I am amazed how low BRiets have fallen.

This site will be only be as good as each member is.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 19:40

bmallick wrote:
nakul wrote: That is the whole idea. It wasn't meant to be torpedo launched. But a VLS gives away the submarine's location on launch. A torpedo launch will cover some distance underwater before surfacing which will not give away the submarine's location.
With all due respect Sir, how much distance would a torpedo launch system cover, before surfacing. Probably a 20-50m, not more than that. Even if it covers 1-2 km, which not any known system does currently IIRC, then also anyone would know that there is a sub present, send an MPA/ASW helicopter and start pinging.

So, I think whether a missile is launched using VLS or TT launched, if someone is watching the location of sub is known.

If the under water distance covered is say 50km (r) (helped a by a torpedo launch system such as by using expendable electric motors which doesn't take away from the power of the missile itself), any ASW sensor watching the missile surface breaking event (which itself is remote) will have to narrow down a region of r^2 sq. kms to triangulate the sub position, now include the depth of the launch factor

A very long range SAM (meant only for MPAs or other high value targets) covers say about 400km which again reduces the chance of escorting fighters for the MPAs working back to the SAM surface breaking location to vector ASW elements

And then a sub would fire a SAM based on its own situational awareness as decided by the sub skipper making this a 'target of opportunity' shooting technique

Think about watching SCS airspace from Vietnamese coast and IN SSNs in the region

VLS based SAMs might be needed in case a sub is cornered or when IN subs trail the enemy subs to shoot down nuclear SLBMs in their boost phase using ABMs and nuke tipped SLCMs with SAMs on D-day scenarios, for these purposes endurance matters so SSNs are the way to go

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 19:58

VLS based SAMs might be needed in case a sub is cornered or when IN subs trail the enemy subs to shoot down nuclear SLBMs in their boost phase using ABMs and nuke tipped SLCMs with SAMs on D-day scenarios, for these purposes endurance matters so SSNs are the way to go

It might be safer to torpedo the SSBN before it launches its payload. It is very difficult to kill a BM in flight.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Sep 2012 20:00

wtf is everything needs to be obtained for ToT.. I understand our needs in niche areas to catch up, but this is like a vehicle dumb found for people to just join on a bandwagon approach towards obtaining patented, classified, and owned products. how in the world any foolish nation would just give away technology like that? will India provide it other nations?

we need to educate our mass what is ToT in the first place. Another buzz word is technology denial for niche products.. I understand it is denied, and we are using that buzz word for DRDO and self development.. excellent.. but the same can't be applied for every other purchase deal. Are the sellers fools?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 20:08

http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-de ... 7_2008.pdf

The above PDF shows a torpdeo launched anti aircraft missile from HDW, Germany. It uses an IR seeker to home on to the target.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 20:50

nakul wrote:
VLS based SAMs might be needed in case a sub is cornered or when IN subs trail the enemy subs to shoot down nuclear SLBMs in their boost phase using ABMs and nuke tipped SLCMs with SAMs on D-day scenarios, for these purposes endurance matters so SSNs are the way to go
It might be safer to torpedo the SSBN before it launches its payload. It is very difficult to kill a BM in flight.

The near term concern should be recoinciling no first use policy with torpeding nuke armed subs at the first hint of danger, and that still negates the need for VLS for SSKs, even surfaced subs can fire 'torpedo-SAMs', SSNs do not surface

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 20:55

The near term concern should be recoinciling no first use policy with torpeding nuke armed subs at the first hint of danger, and that still negates the need for VLS for SSKs, even surfaced subs can fire 'torpedo-SAMs', SSNs do not surface

There is no reason to not fire a torpedo at an SSBN in times of war. This does not come under no first use as long as the munition is conventional. We can use conventional torpedos to destroy their submarines and ships in a conventional war. In future, China might carry nuke weapons on their carriers (as does France for Rafale). It would make sense to destroy them before nukes enter the equation.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Sep 2012 21:02

nakul wrote:
That is the whole idea. It wasn't meant to be torpedo launched. But a VLS gives away the submarine's location on launch. A torpedo launch will cover some distance underwater before surfacing which will not give away the submarine's location.

It is not argument of VLS vs Torpedo launch that argument has been discussed to death by Royal navy vs USN enthusiast. But whether Navy request Brahmos for torpedo launch and that is unlikely since it was never design for such a configuration and even if it is adapted it will be fit in 24in torp tubes which navy doesn't operate. So i doubt IN would make such a request in the first place, may be perhaps the Russian navy.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 21:40

It is not argument of VLS vs Torpedo launch that argument has been discussed to death by Royal navy vs USN enthusiast. But whether Navy request Brahmos for torpedo launch and that is unlikely since it was never design for such a configuration and even if it is adapted it will be fit in 24in torp tubes which navy doesn't operate. So i doubt IN would make such a request in the first place, may be perhaps the Russian navy.

The current subs sont have any VLS either. Whichever method gets chosen, the current subs are not going to use. IN will have to order new subs for it. That is why this discussion - for the next line of SSKs.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 22:02

if 650mm tubes get chosen, they can be potentially back ported to the existing fleet? IN sub fleet is small anyways and Russians can make money either way just the amounts vary

John · Post by **John** » 23 Sep 2012 22:25

nakul wrote:The current subs sont have any VLS either. Whichever method gets chosen, the current subs are not going to use. IN will have to order new subs for it. That is why this discussion - for the next line of SSKs.

VLS is cheaper solution since it will same Brahmos-I missile that is used by naval vessels where as torpedo launch variant will be new missile that is not yet been developed.

Retrofitting them would require extensive redesign.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 22:50

That would be the quickest way out. We can get a Brahmos equipped ASAP without the complication of redesigning an existing system. The no of missiles might be low since it is not easy to refill VLS tubes underwater. The torpedos can be introduced into the tubes as and when required. The navy will have to continue relying on a combination of Klub & Brahmos.

The other option is to go for larger submarines. With the large area of operation for the IN, this could allow for longer ops. It would be interesting to see the SAM system they deploy. With Pakistan getting P3s, it has become a no brainer.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Sep 2012 22:56

Russian package deal is Brahmos and Amur with VLS, either take it or leave it, so VLS isn't cheap if it is just for Brahmos-1

while Russian Kilos have 650mm tubes so has the IN leased Akula

the SSK line can be Scorpene based SSNs with 650mm tubes instead of larger subs which makes them expensive and requires lot more effort to quieten, read delays

Added later: my bad, no 650mm on Kilos, will have to wait for Brahmos-2 which probably can be torpedo tube launched

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 23:03

The Brahmos integration really makes the Russian design an easy choice. IN has already stated that the indigeous line of subs will take the best from east and west. The west part is Scorpene. The east would probably be Amur.

If we go for VLS, that will leave little incentive to make torpedo launched versions of the Brahmos. However, the IN might want to continue research in this front since Nirbhay is going to be torpedo launched anyway. I think the IN would prefer existing designs since the current programs are already quite delayed. The presence of Klub & Exocet does help in reducing the dependence on the Brahmos since the integration with Kilo & Scorpene has already been carried out.

IN should try to lay its hands on the Nirbhay SLCM ASAP. Armed with a small warhead, a dozen of these on any sub will allow us to threaten chinese coastal assets from SCS.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 24 Sep 2012 03:21

India's wait for Javelin missile gets longer as US reluctant to field trials

New Delhi: A proposal to acquire Javelin anti-tank guided missiles from the US has hit a roadblock over transfer of critical technology and reluctance of the American government to participate in the field trials.

India is looking to acquire the third-generation anti-tank guided missiles for modernising its more than 350 Infantry units and provide them the capability to destroy enemy armoured regiments.

The US is not agreeing to provide critical technologies of the missile demanded by India and has also shown reluctance to make available the missiles for being evaluated by Indian experts in the field trials, sources told a news agency here.

Till the time these issues are sorted out, it would be difficult for the Indian side to proceed further on the deal, they said.

In response, US missile manufacturer Raytheon said, "The Javelin JV stands ready to respond to all requests of the Indian government relating to the evaluation and procurement of the combat-proven missile while ensuring it adheres to a US and Indian governments' agreement."

The Javelin missile is manufactured by a JV of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin but sold to global customers through the US government under the Foreign Military Sales route.

The company said the missile was a superior solution on offer to the Indian Army and was "worth the wait as the two governments continue discussions."

Javelin along with the Israeli Spike missile was planned to be evaluated by India for the requirements of its infantry units.

The deal has been stuck for more than two years as Defence Minister AK Antony had said in August 2010 that a Letter of Request would be sent to the US for procuring these missiles along with Transfer of Technology requirements.

The Javelin missiles have only been demonstrated to the Indian Army in military exercises involving the forces of the two countries.

The development has taken place at a time when the US has been assuring India about supplying critical technologies for its various programmes.

During his recent visit to India, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had also assured Antony that the US would initiate measures to provide access to technology.

The denial of dual-use items by the US to various laboratories under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was a key issue for discussion between the two sides.

DRDO chief V K Saraswat had recently said US President Barack Obama's assurance on removal of DRDO from the entities list and easing exports of dual use items had only remained on paper.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2012 03:28

Deal was struck two years ago and not even field trials have begun and the company says the wait is worth it. What critical technologies are there in an anti tank missile?
UPA leadership seems to be ever trusting!

Parkinson third law says" Delay is the worst form of denial!"

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Sep 2012 04:13

^ Rji, now we understand why we have so many deals signed with Unkil. It is MMSian (kill local preparedness to further foreign dependency)

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 24 Sep 2012 05:16

RamaY wrote:^ Rji, now we understand why we have so many deals signed with Unkil. It is MMSian (kill local preparedness to further foreign dependency)

Speaking of which, did we ever receive the CBU-105?
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/india-and-us-ink-cbu-105-cluster-bomb-deal.html

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 24 Sep 2012 08:44

Rji you don't know what is going on in DRDO in this project area, I know and we don't have all the technologies that are needed. I asked you couple of months ago about some SiO2 product

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Sep 2012 09:39

if the US is not willing to let the user do trials in his own environment and using local operators here, how do they expect users to just give $1b for 1000s of these missiles that may have some untested flaw in the 50C Raj heat or the -30C ladakh conditions?

we could avoid another fiasco but atleast insisting on a proper set of trials to ensure everything will work on delivery. we dont need another T90 here

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 24 Sep 2012 16:47

Javelins was trialled very often in Rajasthan as well Alaska when during excercises. don't know why they refuse new trials. Anyways if TOT is an issue,; cancel the deal and order spike. Considering that Spike -MR has been ordered for the BMP upgrade, we should just get the spike under local tot for infantry units.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ia-353022/

As far as CBUs are concerned production for our order began in 2011 so delivery should have started but no idea about which aircraft can deploy as of yet.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Oct 2012 05:58

Times of India: Isro’s missile woman gets Shastri award

Source:http://www.readandknow.org

NEW DELHI: Tessy Thomas, the key defence scientist in the Agni series of missiles, was conferred the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award by President Pranab Mukherjee on Monday.

Thomas was given the award for her outstanding contribution for making India self-reliant in the field of missile technology.

The award, given annually for excellence in public administration, academics and management, carries a Rs 5 lakh purse, a plaque and a citation.

Mukherjee said Thomas, through her dynamism, has made the country proud and self reliant in the sphere of security. He underlined that India neither had the intention of aggression nor to further any commercial interest at the cost of others.

In a career spanning over 24 years, Thomas has contributed in various fields such as guidance, control, inertial navigation, trajectory simulation and mission design.

She was the Associate Project Director (Mission) for Agni-I, II & III systems. She has been associated with the Agni programme right from their developmental stages. She has designed the guidance scheme for long-range missile systems, which is used in all Agni missiles.

Currently, she is the Project Director of Agni-IV, which is a major project with state-of-the-art technologies. The Agni-IV — with a range to launch mass ratio of 15% better than its equivalent missiles across the world — was successfully flight tested on November 15, 2011.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 03 Oct 2012 22:10

We are developing Nirbhay with a range of 1000 km having loitering capabilities. Can anyone tell the datalink used to guide the missile to the target at such ranges? The Brahmos stores an image in its memory I presume before launching but this will not work for loitering targets.

arya · Post by **arya** » 03 Oct 2012 22:54

good news! now we have 2 org. for defence R&D, 1- DRDO n 2-ISRO
wah re DDM masa-allah