Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 20 Dec 2011 00:12

can any on conform the above missiles on Rambha are astra missiles

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 20 Dec 2011 00:36

VinayG wrote:

can any on conform the above missiles on Rambha are astra missiles

YES !!!!

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2011 02:05

chackojoseph wrote:I have not read the entire debate, just skimmed it.

A2's can be used for a ASBM role as A2's are not the kill vehicle. They are the delivery vehicles. This is how Chinese are using BM's. They probably might have decided the radii of action (maybe 500 nautical miles) and covered it with required assets. So, a BM re-enters, ejects the kill vehicle which is expected to be subsonic. Upon release of the kill vehicle, the spread assets will guide them to the nearest possible point and release the munition.

India can also do it for desired radii of action from Indian shores. For example, the farthest possible distance a carrier can operate to launch air assets.

It cannot kill a carrier beyond the radii of action.

CJ: the bolded part is impossible. How will a Mach 6 vehicle release a < Mach 1 kill vehicle? That calls for some serious deceleration

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2011 02:07

Kanson wrote: It is reported in our regular news paper and its internet editions about the presence of terminal seeker for Prithvi and Agni missiles. Yes, as you said, sea clutter could be problem. We only know that these missiles do have terminal seeker but we dont know about the types and its capabilities.

Kanson: can you plz share one of these reports that talk about a terminal seeker for Shourya or BMs? Not that I disbelieve you, but I don't remember reading about it.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2011 02:43

Philip wrote:If ASTRA is going to first tested with ground firings for a year before it is testes in an Air-to-Air mode,then it would be worthwhile for the IA and IN to make use of the tests for their own future versions of SAMs ,derived from the same missile.Such an approach could save upto one year too in flight tests if all 3 services were aboard during the ground testing phase.

+1.

Which is why all this hoopla about Maitri & MBDA collaboration beats me. Maitri should be an Astra-based SR-SAM.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 20 Dec 2011 05:30

Prem Kumar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:I So, a BM re-enters, ejects the kill vehicle which is expected to be subsonic. Upon release of the kill vehicle, the spread assets will guide them to the nearest possible point and release the munition.

CJ: the bolded part is impossible. How will a Mach 6 vehicle release a < Mach 1 kill vehicle? That calls for some serious deceleration

Hmm, just release it in the reverse direction. Assuming the kill vehicle has some propulsion which can provide for a Mach3 relative velocity, it needs to be launch in reverse to slow it down and then it pretty much can start acting like a cruise missile.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 20 Dec 2011 06:21

I have a feeling that is an old pic as the Astra was supposedly updated and the long cruciform control surfaces jettisoned. The updated version is much more TFTAed and AMRAAM looking

d

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Dec 2011 06:25

Prem Kumar wrote:
Philip wrote:If ASTRA is going to first tested with ground firings for a year before it is testes in an Air-to-Air mode,then it would be worthwhile for the IA and IN to make use of the tests for their own future versions of SAMs ,derived from the same missile.Such an approach could save upto one year too in flight tests if all 3 services were aboard during the ground testing phase.
+1.

Which is why all this hoopla about Maitri & MBDA collaboration beats me. Maitri should be an Astra-based SR-SAM.

SR-SAM requirements are huge:

In 3-4 years, IAF will be the best in the world
IAF
4 x Spyders (if squadrons? -> 8 batteries)
49 x SR-SAM (if squadrons? -> 98 batteries)
-----------------------
Totals: 53 x SR-SAM (either squadrons or batteries)

India Buys Israeli “SPYDER” Mobile Air Defense System
IA
3 regiments x SR-SAM (approx. 36 batteries if 2 x 18 IAF order as per article)
--------------------------
Totals: 3 x SR-SAM regiments

Possible SR-SAM Batteries Totals (IAF/IA):
Max -> 142 batteries [8 + 98 + 36] (if IAF orders are in squadrons and IA regiment is large as 12 batteries)
Min -> 89 batteries [53 + 36] (if IAF orders are in batteries and IA regiment is large as 12 batteries)

At minimum 50 missiles per battery:
Max # missiles -> 7,100 SR-SAM missiles
Min # missiles -> 4,450 SR-SAM missiles

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 20 Dec 2011 06:34

tejas wrote:I have a feeling that is an old pic as the Astra was supposedly updated and the long cruciform control surfaces jettisoned. The updated version is much more TFTAed and AMRAAM looking

the below picture is taken during ground test in 2010

the picture u have posted must be block 2 or an improved version which is only a display model not heard or seen any prototypes yet

the picture i posted is from militaryphotos.net which also posted in Tarmak007 . They also posted the ground test picture of the missile
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/bvr-astra-missile-warming-up-for.html

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Dec 2011 06:39

tejas wrote:I have a feeling that is an old pic as the Astra was supposedly updated and the long cruciform control surfaces jettisoned. The updated version is much more TFTAed and AMRAAM looking

...

As per this latest tarmak007 article, there are actually two versions of Astra being developed: (1) 50km Astra Mk.1 and (2) 100km Astra Mk.2 (redesigned body). It sounds like there were issues with the old design and it is being redesigned as in the pic you have shown.

BVR Astra missile warming up for aircraft release in 2013; re-engineered weapon to undergo more captive flight trails in 2012

...
The Rs 955-crore project was sanctioned in 2004 to develop two versions (Mk-1: 50 km & Mk-II: 100 km) for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The programme ran into rough weather for an year owing to controllability issues and higher than expected rolling moments at high angles of attack. The new symmetric configuration fully addresses these concerns and the whole of 2012 will be dedicated to testing a number of missiles from the ground to prove the configuration and engagement envelopes. Two subsystems had also to be re-designed and re-packaged to meet the new system configuration. "There are too many conflicting requirements for an air-to-air missile such as stability and safe release coupled with high agility during engagement against the target aircraft. We have sorted all the issues now," sources said.
...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Dec 2011 07:20

Prem Kumar wrote:
Kanson wrote: It is reported in our regular news paper and its internet editions about the presence of terminal seeker for Prithvi and Agni missiles. Yes, as you said, sea clutter could be problem. We only know that these missiles do have terminal seeker but we dont know about the types and its capabilities.
Kanson: can you plz share one of these reports that talk about a terminal seeker for Shourya or BMs? Not that I disbelieve you, but I don't remember reading about it.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... kg-warhead

Prithvi-II has a strike range of 250 km to 350 km and the capability to carry 500 Kg to 1000 kg warhead. It has a length of nine meters and a diameter of one metre. The missile, weighing around 4.6 tonne, uses an inertial guidance system with reasonably good accuracy and the warhead uses a radar correlation terminal guidance system.

And

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume13/sanjay.html

nash · Post by **nash** » 20 Dec 2011 07:25

IMO the range mention here for astra Mk I is at the altitude of 8-10 km, which make it close to the range of Astra previously mention .

So it would be the old missile only, but with re configuration and MkII version will have more range(~150) at higher altitude

experts can explain that in more details .

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 20 Dec 2011 08:08

Lots of confusion here guys. Srai, if you look at the 2 pics from Tarmak007, please notice that the cruciform surfaces are shorter and have been moved proximally from pic 1 to pic 2. That I thought was the initial redesign of the missile. The absence of the cruciform surfaces was, I thought the final prototype. This is the first I am hearing of a 50 km (much too short legged) version. The initial missile was supposed to be an 80 km range head on missile. This was to be upgraded to least 100 km. So right now I am

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 20 Dec 2011 10:07

In wiki, Astra is mentioned as having a solid motor. But the photo shows the exhaust to be liquid. So there can be two versions.

One another question, cant we use Astra also as a Surface to Air missile and Aksha as a Air to Air missle? That way we can use trishul also as a short range Air to Air too?

nash · Post by **nash** » 20 Dec 2011 11:18

tejas wrote:Lots of confusion here guys. Srai, if you look at the 2 pics from Tarmak007, please notice that the cruciform surfaces are shorter and have been moved proximally from pic 1 to pic 2. That I thought was the initial redesign of the missile. The absence of the cruciform surfaces was, I thought the final prototype. This is the first I am hearing of a 50 km (much too short legged) version. The initial missile was supposed to be an 80 km range head on missile. This was to be upgraded to least 100 km. So right now I am

what i think is Astra MkI can still get that 80 KM rang if it is launched from higher altitude.

it can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea-level

.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article78751.ece

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Dec 2011 17:26

The range of a ground launched AMRAAM is around 10km while for air to air figures anything between 50 to 100km is touted

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2011 17:42

tejas, AAM ranges are especially confusing unless the launch altitude is mentioned. I have seen AMRAAM C5 ranges quoted to be 45 km. it all depends on aircraft speed, height etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Dec 2011 18:40

was it not 20km range for the tail chasing mode? again, I hope this includes the dodged and diverted traverse.. but at what altitude chasing against gravity?.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Dec 2011 21:13

Prem Kumar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:I have not read the entire debate, just skimmed it.

A2's can be used for a ASBM role as A2's are not the kill vehicle. They are the delivery vehicles. This is how Chinese are using BM's. They probably might have decided the radii of action (maybe 500 nautical miles) and covered it with required assets. So, a BM re-enters, ejects the kill vehicle which is expected to be subsonic. Upon release of the kill vehicle, the spread assets will guide them to the nearest possible point and release the munition.

India can also do it for desired radii of action from Indian shores. For example, the farthest possible distance a carrier can operate to launch air assets.

It cannot kill a carrier beyond the radii of action.
CJ: the bolded part is impossible. How will a Mach 6 vehicle release a < Mach 1 kill vehicle? That calls for some serious deceleration

Whats the problem in ejecting a kill vehicle? Arent' sats ejected the same way?

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 20 Dec 2011 23:43

chackojoseph wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:
CJ: the bolded part is impossible. How will a Mach 6 vehicle release a < Mach 1 kill vehicle? That calls for some serious deceleration
Whats the problem in ejecting a kill vehicle? Arent' sats ejected the same way?

It is more to do with basic physics than concepts IMHO.

Ejecting sats in orbits is completely a diff ball game to what you talk of ejecting a kill vehicle.
Sat ejection is more cornered about orbital velocity and the altitude at which the launch vehicle is ejecting the sat.

But in your concept , the BM is already heading towards earth with a min speed of Mach 7? and any mass dropped/ejected under the effect of gravity will have the same speed ( initial velocity) like its parent mass.
If the kill vehicle is not a powered one, then it will continue with pretty much same velocity due to the effect of gravity( possible with little change in speed due to its mass and altitude)

If i am wrong, i would love to be corrected

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2011 23:51

CJ: like Jaladipc said, no problem with the "kill vehicle" concept itself. But the kill vehicle cannot be ejected at subsonic speeds when the parent is travelling at Mach 6.

VikramS: what you are talking about is easier said than done. Who is going to impart the deceleration to the kill vehicle? The last stage warhead is un-powered. A tremendous amount of energy will be required by the parent vehicle to eject a kill vehicle in the opposite direction with the required momentum.

Kanson: thanks for the links

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 21 Dec 2011 00:28

Prem Kumar wrote:C
VikramS: what you are talking about is easier said than done. Who is going to impart the deceleration to the kill vehicle? The last stage warhead is un-powered. A tremendous amount of energy will be required by the parent vehicle to eject a kill vehicle in the opposite direction with the required momentum.

^^^

Is there a law or some MCTR kind of regime which says that the last stage can not have power?

The last stage is very small and all you need is to impart a burst of negative acceleration, and no sustenance. Think in terms of the last stage consisting of two parts, the booster the and the real weapon delivery system.

Also keep in mind that the last stage could be ejected a bit earlier than normal.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Dec 2011 01:53

[TarmAK007] FUTURE STRIKE: India's hypersonic vehicle (HSTDV) ready for ground tests | Stage-separation & air-intake wind-tunnel experiments in Russia

The scramjet-integrated vehicle is mounted on top of an already proven Agni missile booster motor and protected by aerodynamic fairings. The solid booster injects the hypersonic vehicle at the desired altitude of 32 km and Mach number of 6.5. The aerodynamic fairings are separated and the hypersonic vehicle is also separated from the booster. After separation, the scramjet engine is ignited and the vehicle cruises for a short duration of 20 seconds. High temperature materials are used for the engine and airframe construction.

The scramjet integrated vehicle has been designed considering the aero-propulsion interactions. The performance analysis indicates the capability of the vehicle to generate adequate positive thrust margin ensuring cruise condition. “The materials have been identified, thermo-structural design completed and the airframe also fabricated. A scramjet combustor also has been designed and tested in connect pipe mode test facility at DRDL and the performance has been satisfactory, so far. A flight- worthy engine using high temperature resistant materials is under fabrication," sources said.

Comparing this news with an older post form November 29 below, it looks like DRDO team has achieved the high temperature materials for Mach 6.5 and the engine design. The flight-worthy HSTDV in now in fabrication phase. Brahmos team is working on engine design phase with the flight-worthy high temperature materials. Nice to have some competition.

November 29, 2011 post

PratikDas wrote:SaiK ji, the kinetic energy of the Brahmos-2 at Mach 7 would be 6.25 times greater than the kinetic energy of Brahmos at Mach 2.8, assuming the two missiles have the same mass. This will probably not be the case though. IF one were to speculate, even if Brahmos-2 is half as heavy as air-launched Brahmos (2,500 kg) then the Brahmos-2 would still have 3.25 times the kinetic energy of air-launched Brahmos.

This is interesting:

New BrahMos can cover 290 km in two minutes
“We have completed tests up to Mach 6.5,” BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited chief executive officer and managing director A. Sivathanu Pillai said in Chennai. The target is to achieve Mach 7, he added. However, for BrahMos to achieve hypersonic speeds in real field trials scientists need to make certain changes to its components. A new engine has to be designed, which can withstand such high speeds and high temperature. Moreover, there will be a lot of vibration and the components need to withstand it.
So what has been tested so far might be the engine structure, both the exterior shape and the interior cavities, with heavier materials which can be machined to get the desired shape. This design is to be tweaked for the attempt at Mach 7. These materials might not last the flight duration due to the intense heat though, so coming up with ones that do would be the next task.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2011 03:11

It is now confirmed that technology for a 600-second test to cover a range of 1,500 km is also taking shape to establish future strike technologies against hardened and time-critical targets.

That is a tall order.. now 1500km for a hypersonic cruise? that would be like 12 to 13 seconds to destruction - and indeed faster way to destroy than a ballistic missile. now, anyone can compare this expensive with agni-4 or agni++ for that range, and how much benefit we can get in terms of time to destruct targets?

need more application data.. drawing blank here.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 21 Dec 2011 03:45

The images show hypersonic vehicle as a part of a bigger ballistic (?) missile.

So, 1500 km would be for all the stages i guess (hypersonic will be the last stage).

This would be beneficial as the last stage will be very fast thus less prone to enemy BMD's.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2011 04:08

You mean Hypersonic MIRVs? I can't think of anything that would counter that then.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Dec 2011 04:25

SaiK wrote:
It is now confirmed that technology for a 600-second test to cover a range of 1,500 km is also taking shape to establish future strike technologies against hardened and time-critical targets.
That is a tall order.. now 1500km for a hypersonic cruise? that would be like 12 to 13 seconds to destruction - and indeed faster way to destroy than a ballistic missile. now, anyone can compare this expensive with agni-4 or agni++ for that range, and how much benefit we can get in terms of time to destruct targets?

need more application data.. drawing blank here.

I believe your quote shows that 1500 km is covered in 600 seconds [to destruction] and the 1500 km distance includes the distance covered by the booster and the hypersonic vehicle.

1500 km in 600 seconds compares well with 700 km in 600 seconds for Agni-I and 700 km in 500 seconds for Shaurya.

The big question is the payload.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 21 Dec 2011 10:24

Odisha: Two Prithvi-II missiles launched from ITR failed to take off - NDTV

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 21 Dec 2011 10:43

Arun Roperia wrote:Odisha: Two Prithvi-II missiles launched from ITR failed to take off - NDTV

seriously..?

..what an epic failure...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2011 10:58

let us wait and see if it was a PAD test, a regular prithvi test by user agency or yet another experimental variation. also it failed to literally take off from the launcher or crashed soon after launch...per tarmak007 it was the 2nd case - two missiles picked at random from production lot

some news on LRSAM from Indian Express:- hopefully they will face no major hitch else the P15A induction will be delayed as it cannot put to sea without its main armament.

By Anantha Krishnan M
Express News Service
Bangalore/Hyderabad: Indian defence scientists are slogging it out along with weapon specialists from the Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) somewhere in Tel Aviv to develop long-range surface-to-air missiles (LRSAMs) for the Indian Navy. Once cleared for operations, these LRSAMs will add teeth to the P-15 A Kolkata Class guided-missile destroyers of the navy.
Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) sources confirms to Express that the LRSAM team is now all geared up for the first control navigation test scheduled in February 2012. "We are pacing ahead to make the first ship weapon system operational by early 2013. Initial tests (short-range) will be done in Israel and the long-range tests will be done in India. The ballistic flight test (short-range) was successfully conducted in Israel in May 2010," sources said.
An Indo-Israeli joint development project, similar to MRSAM for the Indian Air Force (second in the Express series), the LRSAM project (Barak-2 in Israel) took birth on January 27, 2006 with a sanctioned amount of Rs 2,606.02 crore.
Sources claim that the LRSAMs will be among the best in its class, thanks to the energy-management capabilities it adopts. "This ship-based system gets synchronized with other units onboard like radars, combat management and gun-control units. The rear section is being developed by DRDL scientists and the front section by the IAI. We (DRDL) are participating in the development of radar, weapon control system,” sources said. With a range of 70 km and weighing around 275 kg, the LRSAM project is expected to establish a strategic relationship between India and Israel in developing next generation guided weapon systems. “It will definitely provide naval superiority in the coming decades. The weapon system consists of a multi-function surveillance threat alert radar (MFSTAR), weapon control system (WCS) with data link and missiles to arm three P-15A class ships of the Indian Navy,” sources said.
Over 100 missiles are being planned under this project aimed at safeguarding Indian warships from cruise missiles and fighter aircraft. A dual-pulse propulsion unit, high-performance electro-mechanical servo actuation system, active radar seeker and walled active phased array radar for 360 degrees coverage are the tech-treat that is getting embedded on the LRSAM. “Our scientists (currently 20 in Israel) are getting exposure to the development cycle experience in latest and critical design processes. Spin-offs to other indigenous programmes are also huge,” say sources.
Speaking to Express from Singapore, former Vice Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral (Retd) Ram Pream Suthan said that the LRSAMs will raise the level of preparedness of Indian Navy. “It is a huge boost and will help take on the enemy aircraft directly, instead of homing on to a missile. LRSASMs will give the Indian Navy a huge advantage especially against air-to-surface missiles,” Suthan said.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 21 Dec 2011 11:00

Singha wrote:let us wait and see if it was a PAD test, a regular prithvi test by user agency or yet another experimental variation. also it failed to literally take off from the launcher or crashed soon after launch...

according to TOI it was supposed to be tandem launch in a simulated environment... the missiles being picked randomly from the product line..... this is panic inducing...

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 21 Dec 2011 11:01

Can somebody post link of NDTV, about test failure??

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 21 Dec 2011 11:03

mayankdr wrote:Can somebody post link of NDTV, about test failure??

it is already showing up on BRF news link section .. .

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 21 Dec 2011 11:27

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 734460.ece

Update about the Missile Failure news

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 21 Dec 2011 11:29

its disappointing.

there are few questions in my mind:
1. why 2 missile tests were scheduled? probably the 2 missiles are fed 2 different targets and during flight they interchange it. can it be such case?
2. what happened to second missile? did it worked fine or they just cancelled the second one?
3. can it be a production defect or lack of sufficient user training? (both seems unlikely to me as prithvi is much much tested missile and sfc has carried out such tests of same missile in the past)

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Dec 2011 11:30

As per the Hindu the launches were halted.

Glitch halts test-launch of Prithvi missiles

Plans to launch two nuclear-capable Prithvi-II missiles in a salvo mode within a few minutes of each other were aborted at the last minute on Wednesday after a technical glitch developed in one of them.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 21 Dec 2011 11:54

Some technical issue with one of the Prithvi missile. The second one was fine. But the test was aborted. May be conducted again after the issue is sorted.
Now regarding the use of Prithvi's in service, it's time to replace it. A missile developed in the early 1990's need replacement after 20 years of serving the nation well. Not only the Prithvi variants including 1, 2 and 3 be replaced but also the Agni-1 variant with the new Shourya missile. It's better to replace the 300 km Prithvi and 700km Agni-1 with the Shourya.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2011 12:11

prahaar and shourya can cover for the prithvi, but they might want to use it a while more to recover investment. eventually all can be used up as targets for AAD, Pradyuma, LRSAM etc. shourya might be lot costlier than prithvi.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Dec 2011 12:16

Trust undie TV m@&$%(#ods to bleat "FAILURE!" when it was an aborted launch.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Dec 2011 12:25

Twin test of Prithvi-II postponed: ITR director

The ITR director's statement came in the midst of media reports that two missiles had failed to take off during the twin trial. "I don't know on what basis they have concluded that the trial had failed," Dash said.

Defence officials and scientists associated with the trial were tight-lipped on what exactly led to the postponement of the test.