Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[Austin]

Go easy on me.

Does the idea of 126 EF/Rafale + (200-174) F-35 have any merits against an outright purchase of 200 EF/Rafale.

Exactly where is the money going to come for that kind of purchase without compromising on other budgetary essentials , in the end such imports will keeps us in the number one list of arms importing country for the next decade , quite sure if the current import will keep us there for a long time to come.

[koti]

Can someone explain to me why when a Prahaar is tested, only *one* is tested? What is the religious significance of this, because there is surely no statistical significance to this? If one test proves that the missile works, testing 4 at once will give a quick indicator of CEP. If one test fails miserably, testing 4 at once will expose more failure modes

Any Missile in its first test will be tested for verifying the integration of subsystems.
The subsystem improvement like the CEP reduction will be carried out progressively. And the seekers can be comprehensively evaluated on ground and using up the precious test quota will not be justified.

[Nihat]

Nirbhay is of prime importance to us, perhaps the most important indigenous weapon system and one which should be accorded the highest priority. As pointed out by rohit, both Brahmos and Prahaar are tactical missiles but we urgently need a missile system which can damage the war fighting capability of a country in it's heartland rather than just in a restricted battlefield.

China has several military zones and airfields which would be expected to supply men, materials and ammo to the front lines in case of a war and no matter how many men we have on the battle field , it won't blunt China's supply power. Assuming a large base 650Km inside China which supplies the front lines, then what are our current options to disable it. Either use BM's and risk being on the receiving end too or send in Su-30's heavily armed but hardly stealthy and risking precious pilot lives.

Nirbhay will give us flexibility in such times that we never had before, the ability to hit targets deep in enemy territory without having to risk pilots or use BM's and freeing up the airspace for CAS and air dominance roles.

[PratikDas]

Can someone explain to me why when a Prahaar is tested, only *one* is tested? What is the religious significance of this, because there is surely no statistical significance to this? If one test proves that the missile works, testing 4 at once will give a quick indicator of CEP. If one test fails miserably, testing 4 at once will expose more failure modes

Any Missile in its first test will be tested for verifying the integration of subsystems.
The subsystem improvement like the CEP reduction will be carried out progressively. And the seekers can be comprehensively evaluated on ground and using up the precious test quota will not be justified.

But how paisa-wise rupee-foolish is that? The amount of effort it takes to get permission to test, issue the relevant safety notices, get the people out into the field, rig the test and measurement devices/radars, and finally collect the data is so labour intensive that it makes no sense to launch just one missile with fingers and toes crossed. If the first missile fails, it would be fair to call off remaining tests of the same missile, but if the first missile succeeds then I see no reason why not to test the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, and then declare the missile ready for induction, or at least ready for user-trials.

[Marut]

What you propose will infact be the more paisa-wise-rupee-foolish approach. Testing is done to check if all subsystems and their integration together is working fine or not. The first flight is for general check - All OK. Prototypes are usually 'hand made' (so to speak) hence more costly than the production models which come of the assembly line and only need to be batch tested. The subsequent tests are used to refine the missile performance based on telemetry and flight performance data gathered during initial testing as well as zero in on the final configuration of the various systems and sub-systems for production runs.

Preparing to test 3 or 4 missiles at once will mean no room for iterative refinement if it's a success or a lot of money down the drain if all fail - which they will since they will have similar configuration. Having different versions in the first test itself will not improve your surety of success since the configuration chosen for the first itself is the 'theoretical optimum' configuration. So a 50-50 chance will end up as 1:3 or 1:4 per your idea.

For example: The Agni II failure were zeroed down to the quality of materials used. If they tested all three simultaneously, then all would have failed. But the unitary test approach allows us to rectify or refine any parameter based on actual flight performance data than just theoretical calculations and simulations.

[koti]

But how paisa-wise rupee-foolish is that? The amount of effort it takes to get permission to test, issue the relevant safety notices, get the people out into the field, rig the test and measurement devices/radars, and finally collect the data is so labour intensive that it makes no sense to launch just one missile with fingers and toes crossed. If the first missile fails, it would be fair to call off remaining tests of the same missile, but if the first missile succeeds then I see no reason why not to test the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, and then declare the missile ready for induction, or at least ready for user-trials.

What more do the remaining missile tests verify? That the same config works for the second time too?
Or the CEP with more expectation?(Statistical term)

Now, I will test it sometime later with different fuel, payload combo. and see how the CEP changes, make necessary changes in s/w(say).
Later, with max range and max payload, look at the telemetry again.
Goes on till I have what I want.

[Kersi D]

As a nation we do not trust other Indians. We are instantly confident of the quality of anything that is not Indian.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
As a nation we do not trust other Indians. We are instantly confident of the quality of anything that is not Indian."

At least if these feelings or assessments were balanced, they wouldn't be so jarring and distasteful. An Indian could say something to the effect that there have been problems with some Indian developed products, but that even more advanced countries' products have had issues. Despite those countries having much more experience and superior infrastructure. Instead of sweepingly denouncing everything Indian. Also, one gets the impression that organisations like DRDO do not aggressively pubilcise( and in a way, it's commendable) all their achievements, including spin-offs from defense research.

[PratikDas]

----
What more do the remaining missile tests verify? That the same config works for the second time too?
Or the CEP with more expectation?(Statistical term)

Now, I will test it sometime later with different fuel, payload combo. and see how the CEP changes, make necessary changes in s/w(say).
Later, with max range and max payload, look at the telemetry again.
Goes on till I have what I want.

Koti ji, do you at least agree that it would make sense to test 2, one for max range and one for max payload, assuming the first test is a success? Or does one test guarantee the other?

-----
Added later:

Marut ji, of course, you are completely right in saying that the prototypes are custom-made, expensive, and that testing several doesn't leave room for iterative refinement. No contest from me and none possible. Subsequent test campaigns would be necessary.

I also agree with your comment about systemic defects, like material defects, affecting the Agni-II are not helped by multiple tests. I'm not proposing testing beyond the first failure. Nevertheless, one test can succeed out of sheer probability of a success, can it not? One successful test doesn't mean "all ok".

[tsarkar]

As a nation we do not trust other Indians. We are instantly confident of the quality of anything that is not Indian.

This is true as an assessment of the Indian psyche in the 60s/70s/80s and even 90s. Not this century. Whenever any Indian warship visits foreign ports, they are amazed at our degree of integration skills. No other ship in the world has equipment of multiple technical standards working together as ours.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

...

Can someone explain to me why when a Prahaar is tested, only *one* is tested? What is the religious significance of this, because there is surely no statistical significance to this? If one test proves that the missile works, testing 4 at once will give a quick indicator of CEP. If one test fails miserably, testing 4 at once will expose more failure modes.

What's the deal?

You're asking about the difference between 'Development Trials' and 'Verification Trials'.

During 'Development Trials', it is quite likely that every missile tested is different in some way -- trying to correct a problem or improve performance somehow. Only when the design is fixed ("set in place", "written in stone"); only then does missile production move from the laboratory into an assembly hall in a manufacturing plant.

With missiles produced in factories, that's when 'Verification Trials' might consider testing four (or more, randomly selected) missiles at once.

[PratikDas]

That's a good point. I was confusing the two kinds of trials. For the development trials, I still believe it makes sense to try different flight profiles, to test different corners of the performance envelope. Shaurya, for example, can behave so differently if the trajectory is depressed or not. Would it not have made sense to test both in the first development trial?

For the verification trials it would make sense to try more than one for assurance of end-to-end quality.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to knock the current process. Real world realities like a financial budget or the media circus over a test failure can discourage testing beyond the first success to "quit while you're ahead", so to speak. I'm trying to understand if these limitations are slowing down the R&D process significantly. I've done several experiments, in a completely different and less rigorous field, but gleaning all your conclusions out of one experiment can be excruciating.

[koti]

Koti ji, do you at least agree that it would make sense to test 2, one for max range and one for max payload, assuming the first test is a success? Or does one test guarantee the other?

I believe it is more appropriate if I test the second missile with max payload by incorporating the feedback from the first missile firing too.

This is kind of a probabilistic method where in all the required parameters can be valuated in minimum number of tests.

[Prem Kumar]

IIRC the problem was noted during trials of the system and was rectified before it was purchased and fitted on ships , If i am not wrong the P-16A was without its main SAM for more then a year in the hope Trishul problem will be rectified but finally the navy had to procure Barak because of some urgent clause that navy invoked

3. Krasnopol GPS guided shells were useless. I am not sure if we bought them. We may have

Krasnopol was a laser guided shell and was never a GPS system , again during trials there were flaws found when it was operated at higher altitude which was subsequenty rectified by OEM and it performed very well after that.

Austin: the truth is somewhere in between. The DRDO has in the past shafted the services by repeated delays. The services also have demonstrated clear double standards for inducting even world class indigenous weapon systems. Take the example of NAG: it went through summer trials in 2009 where it was tested with a minimum range of 800 meters. Then followed winter trials. Then followed another round of summer trials in 2010 for a minimum ranger of 500 meters. How ridiculous is that - are we to believe that the IA will be seriously handicapped if they had inducted the Nag Mark 1 with the 800 meter minimum engagement range? To be followed by Mark 2.

But the tamasha didnt end there: here we are at the end of 2011 and the IA will still not induct the Nag because it wants a modified Namica, which they had the chance to evaluate all these years

One goes - WTF?

And by the way - the indigenous IIR seeker is old news. Ajai Shukla clarified that this was implemented in Nag back in March 2010.

Lets come to Krasnopol - no such summer trials, winter trials, 2nd summer trials, equinox trials "before induction" for this fine weapon. Induct in haste & repent in leisure. Of course, the OEM can be trusted to fix it later because they are foreign (i.e. not Indian).

And can you point me to any article that talks about the Krasnopol high altitude accuracy issues being fixed? I'm asking in seriousness because I dont remember seeing one.

[shiv]

Austin: the truth is somewhere in between. The DRDO has in the past shafted the services by repeated delays. The services also have demonstrated clear double standards for inducting even world class indigenous weapon systems. Take the example of NAG: it went through summer trials in 2009 where it was tested with a minimum range of 800 meters. Then followed winter trials. Then followed another round of summer trials in 2010 for a minimum ranger of 500 meters. How ridiculous is that - are we to believe that the IA will be seriously handicapped if they had inducted the Nag Mark 1 with the 800 meter minimum engagement range? To be followed by Mark 2.

But the tamasha didnt end there: here we are at the end of 2011 and the IA will still not induct the Nag because it wants a modified Namica, which they had the chance to evaluate all these years

One goes - WTF?

The last 2 issues of Vayu have pointed at another sordid saga of this business. No single person can be held responsible and I think it is the indian psyche of "rubbishing Indian stuff and looking for phoren solutions" that plays a role.

The HF 24 as we all know was underpowered. Nevertheless it could have served as lead in fighter trainer. A HF 24 trainer was indeed built and delivered just weeks before the HF-24 was prematurely retired. Why was the trainer not used. because the training base was Hakimpet which is 2000 feet up and does not have a long enough runway for a plane like the HF 24 to take off (under some circumstances)

But here's the rub. Later on fighter conversion training was taken to low altitude above seal level bases like Tezpur (where the HF 24 could have been taken) but the training was on the MiG 21. And that is what led to deficiencies of training where inexperienced pilots got killed. And this is still happening now - the Hawk should finally take over any time now. But the Hawk was bought after 20 years when an AJT should have been developed in house. Where is the direction?

As an aside the HF 24 had an air conditioning system that was top class and once it was in the air pilot comfort was far greater than the other imported aircraft. This "air conditioning for crew comfort" is a topic that comes up time and again. We heard about it in the Arjun and it was there as far back as the HF-24 days. And we all now know that the Jaguar which came after the HF 24 was thrown out was also underpowered. Maybe less so but underpowered nevertheless. And the Jaguar actually manages to be effective because of the Indian DARIN modifications rather than what we bought.

So what gives?

Sorry OT

[vasu_ray]

^^ I understood the query you raised. Officially there is no such info in the public domain. Considering the robustness of the missile and its past performance we can draw inference. In my view, to justify its high cost, it should to be able to offer advanced capabilities matching to its cost. I prefer conduits rather than cone. It should be able to seek targets hidden behind high raise structures or other features that obstruct natural course of movement.

Thanks Kanson, this conduit is most likely thinner than the ones from missiles using tercom and/or dsmac in which case hypothetically it could fly a terrain hugging profile as well which brings us to the latest test of Brahmos block 3 performing terrain scaling maneuvers in Pokhran desert and probably at the control room the telemetry was overlayed on 3d topographic maps of a mountainous terrain

In this case the way points to the target are chosen in such a way that the flight between way points doesn't intersect the terrain or the missile's FCS can take into account topo maps on its way (mission specific) so that the way points can be placed relatively closer to the terrain and still not run the risk of the missile running into the ground?

so the basic contention is, the current GPS+INS sensors are accurate enough for a high fidelity platform (either a fighter or a missile) make terrain hugging flights without resorting to using the radar? in the case of fighters one could afford to pre load them with topo maps of vast areas

[Kersi D]

As a nation we do not trust other Indians. We are instantly confident of the quality of anything that is not Indian.

The credit goes to license raj oft the 1960s to 1980s. We had no option but to envy good western products and use crude / primitive Indian products.

But there is one thing I do not understand. The Indian who used to drool over "imported maal" and downgrade local stuff. now talk about the virtues of the Chinese "maal". Moral of the story, Phoren maal is always "better" than local maal

[aniket]

How does the Brahmos compare with the SS-N-22 Sunburn ?

[Singha]

both are about same size and shape. but Moskit (Raduga) is a product of the 1970s and Brahmos (by Mashinostrenya) of the 1990s so likely its the brahmos(yakhont) and its bigger cousin the Granit that is the more modern weapon.

chinese took the Moskit technology and used that for derivatives in the YJ-xx series as usual.

the Klub seems to be the evolutionary missing link between the han and the hindu, as both have purchased the same missile. that is why IN does not seem keen on klub for surface ships or subs anymore.

[Kanson]

In this case the way points to the target are chosen in such a way that the flight between way points doesn't intersect the terrain or the missile's FCS can take into account topo maps on its way (mission specific) so that the way points can be placed relatively closer to the terrain and still not run the risk of the missile running into the ground?

No. You are confusing both. GPS is used as an additional guidance tool to increase flexibility and not as primary guidance method.

Officially if i have to describe the role of GPS in Brahmos it is for 1) Aiming and 2) Target Acquisition.

Hypothetically, lets say Target is hiding in a building and the missile mission is to hit the target and not to destroy the building. How the missile do that without GPS? Missile has to reach the building by using pre launch information; use the seeker to identify the building and then approach a particular section of the building to pass through the openings like door/windows. Once inside it has to again scan the area to find out its gateway from that hall/room to another room, match that will be preloaded data and then manoeuver itself in a limited space to enter another room. Important point is that the missile is supersonic so the time available to do all this is limited unlike subsonic missile. Can Brahmos do all these without GPS? Yes. So why to add GPS? As i said earlier it increases flexibility. With addition of GPS, i can cue the seeker to scan a particular segment rather than scan the entire area, compare that with pre-loaded data and then manoeuver. It reduces the load of the missile guidance+seeker and more importantly reduces reaction as well as response time (becoz missile already started to position towards gateway to another room as it already knows the path to take with GPS addition). This comes handy in engaging complex target.

In the terrain hugging role it can use radar altimeter.

so the basic contention is, the current GPS+INS sensors are accurate enough for a high fidelity platform (either a fighter or a missile) make terrain hugging flights without resorting to using the radar? in the case of fighters one could afford to pre load them with topo maps of vast areas

Yes. Pls check this.

[Vipul]

Missile-maker Bharat Dynamics Ltd on expansion drive.

A swelling order book has put defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL), a company that makes a range of missiles for India's defence services, on an expansion drive.India's missile maker, Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL), has booked 500 acres of land at the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation's (MIDC) estate at Amravati, with the intention of producing air defence missiles.

It has already bagged a Rs14,000 crore order to produce Akash surface-to-air missiles for the Indian Army, and this huge order, coupled with a smaller sized order for the same missile from the Indian Air Force is one of the main reasons for the company seeking to establish new manufacturing facilities.

The new units are expected to become operational from 2015-16 onwards with Amravati likely to be the first. The PSU will be opening five new units entailing a total investment of up to Rs4000 crore.The expansion drive is expected to result in the creation of hundreds of new jobs.

Currently BDL has units in Hyderabad and Medak districts in Andhra Pradesh. The major part of work on Akash is expected to continue in Hyderabad itself. There are other orders that can include long range missiles and air-to-air missiles.Work on Amravati site may start in April 2012 with production likely to start in three years.

BDL's other unit is coming up at Ibhrahimpattnam in the Ranga Reddy district close to Hyderabad. This unit is likely to become operational along with the new facility at Amravati, said BDL officials.The company is also in the process of acquiring 500-600 acres of land in Anantpur and Chitoor districts of Andhra Pradesh. Each of these new unit will entail an investment of up to Rs800 crore.

BDL has also acquired a 10-acre plot at Vishakhapatnam for the manufacture of torpedoes for the Indian Navy.BDL, well known as a maker of surface-to-surface 'Prithvi' missiles, produces the entire range of India's tactical and strategic missiles, including the 'Agni' series.It has produced an upgraded version of the Nag anti-tank missile, which has a fire-and-forget capability, said BDL officials.

This defence PSU commenced operations in 1970 by producing the first generation missiles in collaboration with France and the erstwhile USSR.

[saje]

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=16494

The Navy has sought permission for temporary use of the ecologically sensitive forest land on the island for missile testing and erection of temporary structure of 2m x 2m as target for testing accuracy of missiles fired from submarines.

K-4/K-15 testing?

[ramana]

Most likely sub launched Klub or Brahmos. Note yearly schedule. IOW some operational testing.

[Vipul]

Any updates on the test of A2 Prime on Nov 10?

[vasu_ray]

Hypothetically, lets say Target is hiding in a building and the missile mission is to hit the target and not to destroy the building. How the missile do that without GPS? Missile has to reach the building by using pre launch information; use the seeker to identify the building and then approach a particular section of the building to pass through the openings like door/windows. Once inside it has to again scan the area to find out its gateway from that hall/room to another room, match that will be preloaded data and then manoeuver itself in a limited space to enter another room. Important point is that the missile is supersonic so the time available to do all this is limited unlike subsonic missile. Can Brahmos do all these without GPS? Yes. So why to add GPS? As i said earlier it increases flexibility. With addition of GPS, i can cue the seeker to scan a particular segment rather than scan the entire area, compare that with pre-loaded data and then manoeuver. It reduces the load of the missile guidance+seeker and more importantly reduces reaction as well as response time (becoz missile already started to position towards gateway to another room as it already knows the path to take with GPS addition). This comes handy in engaging complex target.

In the terrain hugging role it can use radar altimeter.

That book was informative, thanks

if I read you correctly, the prime nav system is INS with some sort of scene correlation in real time (like dsmac) done at waypoints, in addition it can take GPS input to focus on narrower regions and hence reduce computing effort

the scene correlation in mountainous terrain sounds a lot closer to terrain avoidance (TA) mode, its helped by the mission planning software which would prepare a set of potential paths to the target before launch

for subsonic missiles which mainly have to depend on terrain following (TF) mode using a radar altimeter to avoid detection, even if the route is preplanned, scene correlation for reference check may not help in situations where the FOV of the seeker is blinded by say the base of a mountain, and again if GPS is not used as the main nav system, would using a gimbaled seeker help? with the cueing provided by internally stored digital elevation maps?

probably mission planning is done such that the seeker FOV of the missile is never drowned out by terrain or its more energy efficient that way

[wig]

DRDO developing a futuristic e-bomb, i imagine it will be capable of targeting adversary computer systems, networks

With electronic warfare and network-centric operations playing an increasingly significant role in today’s battlefield, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing a weapon that renders electronic gadgets useless and effectively neutralises the adversary’s command, control and communication capability.

Commonly referred to as “e-bomb”, the weapon produces a strong electromagnetic field generating powerful electricity surges that can play havoc with electronic circuits within a specified area.

“We have developed and validated the technology and the weapon in its usable form is expected to be complete within the 12th Plan,” Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) director Dr Manjit Singh said.

“Though this is the biggest weapon of mass destruction next to a nuclear bomb, it has a limited collateral damage as it does not target humans and is designed to hit computer systems and networks,” he said.

The e-bomb, based on Explosive Driven High Energy Pulse Power Technology, can be deployed against non-military establishments like banking and civic utility networks, communication and power generation networks.

It not only disables gadgets and networks but also destroys or damages them, which can seriously affect day-to-day functioning of the society over an extended period of time. The bomb can also be used against mobile enemy command and control centres or advancing formations to render them “blind” by disrupting communication.

The basic principle of the weapon, according to APS Sodhi, a senior scientist working on the programme, is converting the explosive’s chemical power into electrical power. “Detonation of 1 kg of the designed explosive mixture can produce about 4.5 megaJoule of electricity energy,” he said. The explosive is a mixture of RDX and TNT.

Initially, DRDO’s e-bomb is being designed for delivery by combat aircraft and later, as technology is matured and the warhead made more compact, it would be integrated with missiles.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111108/main4.htm

[ramana]

One step away from pure fusion.

[Singha]

its the EMP bomb.

[Philip]

I'm sure that even today,the venerable HF-24 and Hunters can perform exceedingly well in the GA role,equipped with new avionics and PGMs.When long-endurance UCAVs of size close to that of small fighters are being developed to carry just two 250lb. bombs,legacy aircraft ,if still airworthy with life left in them,can be innovatively tweaked to be of some relevance today.

AWST a few months ago had a report on the Indo-Russian JV for the hypersonic version of BMos and the status of our hypersonic vehicle (M 2-8),with a pic of a wind-tunnel model.Has there been any further word on the two developments?

[sudhan]

Most likely sub launched Klub or Brahmos. Note yearly schedule. IOW some operational testing.

I have seen videos in Youtube of Brahmos punching through a tiny target put up on a wall (metallic target?).. That was _AWESOME_

But we haven't performed any tests of the BrahMos from a sub yet.. have we?

[krishnan]

When that happens, there will be lots of people soiling their pants.

[koti]

I'm sure that even today,the venerable HF-24 and Hunters can perform exceedingly well in the GA role,equipped with new avionics and PGMs.

Hunters will surely be as good for GA as they ever were... But where they will not do any well is when faced with Stingers.
And it will very well be a duck hunt irrespective of the avionics and PGM's used.

[Kanson]

if I read you correctly, the prime nav system is INS with some sort of scene correlation in real time (like dsmac) done at waypoints, in addition it can take GPS input to focus on narrower regions and hence reduce computing effort

the scene correlation in mountainous terrain sounds a lot closer to terrain avoidance (TA) mode, its helped by the mission planning software which would prepare a set of potential paths to the target before launch

for subsonic missiles which mainly have to depend on terrain following (TF) mode using a radar altimeter to avoid detection, even if the route is preplanned, scene correlation for reference check may not help in situations where the FOV of the seeker is blinded by say the base of a mountain, and again if GPS is not used as the main nav system, would using a gimbaled seeker help? with the cueing provided by internally stored digital elevation maps?

probably mission planning is done such that the seeker FOV of the missile is never drowned out by terrain or its more energy efficient that way

You can find missiles which rely totally on single guidance system like INS for its entire flight. Or in today's world it is GPS+INS or GPS aided INS, like Apache missile. Here the primary Nav is through INS but aided by GPS.

In Tomahawk earlier versions, it is TERCOM aided INS system(TAINS) - which is the Mid Course guidance. Terminal guidance is by DSMAC (Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation)

As the scope of the missile grows, more no. of systems get added for the aid of INS system. For later Tomahawk versions, GPS was added to the mix.

Storm Shadow uses, TERPROM + GPS + INS. While TERCOM uses Radar altimeter, TERPROM is a highly adaptive system employing every seeker available like mmW, IIR as well as radar altimeter in sensor fuzed fashion to provide GPS independent Navigation.

In the case of Taurus, "Fusion of sensor data from three sensors provides reliable autonomous navigation. The sensors package include IBN (Image Based Navigation), TRN (Terrain Reference Navigation) and MIL-GPS (Global Positioning System) subsystems. The use of such fusion enables the Taurus KEPD 350 to navigate over long distances without GPS support." This IBN is based on IIR seeker.

New Gen of long range missile from US stable will be similar to Storm Shadow/Taurus providing GPS Independent Navigation, compared to SLAM-ER and JASSM/JASSM-ER which are GPS dependent. Some believe IIR Seeker used in these missiles also provides navigational cues. But no concrete proof.

You see, all these systems added aid INS.

As you can see, though GPS enhances flexibility, the trend is increasingly towards providing GPS independent Navigation while at the same time retaining GPS for its benefits when needed. One more trend which you can observe is that there is no more separate systems for Mid Course guidance and Terminal guidance like Tomahawk Block I. TERPROM in Storm Shadow can use its IIR seeker for Mid Course Navigation and as well as for Terminal guidance. Same thing for Taurus.

Same way, in Brahmos, GPS, INS, Seeker(whatever that means) acts coherently through out its flight path. How each one behaves depends upon on its mission and type of environment and target it encounters.

probably mission planning is done such that the seeker FOV of the missile is never drowned out by terrain or its more energy efficient that way

Yes, if the seeker(or the missile) has limitations, planning is modified in such way to negate its limitations. In this case as you described, its flight path will be altered accordingly. Mission planning takes care of that. That's why without GPS, it is mentioned, it takes days to do mission planning.

[Leo.Davidson]

DRDO developing a futuristic e-bomb, i imagine it will be capable of targeting adversary computer systems, networks

With electronic warfare and network-centric operations playing an increasingly significant role in today’s battlefield, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing a weapon that renders electronic gadgets useless and effectively neutralises the adversary’s command, control and communication capability.

Commonly referred to as “e-bomb”, the weapon produces a strong electromagnetic field generating powerful electricity surges that can play havoc with electronic circuits within a specified area.

“We have developed and validated the technology and the weapon in its usable form is expected to be complete within the 12th Plan,” Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) director Dr Manjit Singh said.

“Though this is the biggest weapon of mass destruction next to a nuclear bomb, it has a limited collateral damage as it does not target humans and is designed to hit computer systems and networks,” he said.

The e-bomb, based on Explosive Driven High Energy Pulse Power Technology, can be deployed against non-military establishments like banking and civic utility networks, communication and power generation networks.

It not only disables gadgets and networks but also destroys or damages them, which can seriously affect day-to-day functioning of the society over an extended period of time. The bomb can also be used against mobile enemy command and control centres or advancing formations to render them “blind” by disrupting communication.

The basic principle of the weapon, according to APS Sodhi, a senior scientist working on the programme, is converting the explosive’s chemical power into electrical power. “Detonation of 1 kg of the designed explosive mixture can produce about 4.5 megaJoule of electricity energy,” he said. The explosive is a mixture of RDX and TNT.

Initially, DRDO’s e-bomb is being designed for delivery by combat aircraft and later, as technology is matured and the warhead made more compact, it would be integrated with missiles.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111108/main4.htm

Is this article about Non-nuclear EMP? I was under the impression that these were devices or equipment, not bombs. Can anybody attest for a fact that these exist as a bomb?

The TBRL claim is that they are developing this bomb, which may imply it is still abstract.

[Philip]

Is this "e-bomb" similar to what the US used in the Balkans,or is it an EMP?

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

It's an EMP.

The explosive is essentially used to destroy a fully charged chemical 'capacitor', and ideally, that energy is directed in a cone unto the target area. To call it 'lethal' is overstating things. It is meant to kill electronic systems.

What the US used in the Balkans was air-bursting canisters that were filled with fine fillaments, long glass filaments that were very fine, but which were coated with silver; so that when they fell across the electric transmission lines, they caused a short.

As soon as the power lines and the electrical sub-stations were swept clear of the fillaments (which took some doing), the power came back on.

With an EMP, the damage to electronics is much more severe and harder to fix, often involving scrapping the burnt-out part.

BTW: Some analysts have suggested that China tested an EMP weapon on an American cruise ship....
http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forums/f2 ... nt-157730/
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/ ... 00114.html
http://cajunrooster.hubpages.com/hub/Th ... l-Splendor

[shiv]

DRDO developing a futuristic e-bomb, i imagine it will be capable of targeting adversary computer systems, networks

It not only disables gadgets and networks but also destroys or damages them, which can seriously affect day-to-day functioning of the society over an extended period of time. The bomb can also be used against mobile enemy command and control centres or advancing formations to render them “blind” by disrupting communication.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111108/main4.htm

Wonder if this has any relation with the following, from the "Atlantic" article linked on Pakhani threads
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/pri ... hell/8730/

Seizing or remotely disabling a weapon of mass destruction is what’s known in military jargon as a “render-safe mission”—and render-safe missions have evidently been successfully pulled off by JSOC in the past. In his memoir, Hugh Shelton, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, recalls an incident from the 1990s in which the CIA told the Special Operations Command that a ship had left North Korea with what Shelton describes as “an illegal weapon” on board. Where it was headed, the U.S. didn’t know. He wrote:

It was a very time-sensitive mission in which a specific SEAL Team Six component was called into action. While I cannot get into the tactical elements or operational details of this mission, what I can say is that our guys were able to “immobilize” the weapon system in a special way without leaving any trace.

[Singha]

does EMP work even if the targets electrical system is in powered off state ? (as that noko weapon was likely to be during transport).

[hnair]

The surges happen despite power-down and can damage. But then I thought a "faraday cage" (or whatever it is called) is standard for such high-value courier packages?

[kvraghavaiah]

Waiting for news on AGNI-II prime test. I heard long ago that it will be tested on Oct 10th, after repeatedly pushed up dates.