Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 08 Aug 2009 15:39

I bet ya this is why iaf is putting pressure on hal to keep timelines on mki production. Its the only air platform that can launch brahmos.

The timing of this news is just too perfect.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2009 17:07

All this in the presence of ManTech!!!!!!!

Also, the MKI is the more viable solution to test. I do not think the Russians AF have a good platform to be the first platform to test this beast. (Not a knock.) The MKI will give both sides a great test platform.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Aug 2009 17:48

^Reason Su-30mki was choosen was because Russian AF has displayed no interest in air launched Brahmos even for the Su-34 which would be best flanker platform for testing it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2009 17:51

they have kh101 and kh555 to play with.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 08 Aug 2009 17:54

Despite the Brahmos-A, we still need the air launched nirbhay. A 2.5 tonne missile with a limited 300 km range is not much of a threat for the uruk-hai's up north.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Aug 2009 17:58

Singha wrote:they have kh101 and kh555 to play with.

Not to mention they also have air launched moskit.

vavinash wrote:Despite the Brahmos-A, we still need the air launched nirbhay. A 2.5 tonne missile with a limited 300 km range is not much of a threat for the uruk-hai's up north.

Yes also not to mention Brahmos is limited to Su-30s which limits the # of launching platforms serverily. Need a stand off missile for MRCA, Mig-29/k, Mirage-2000 and LCA.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 08 Aug 2009 19:56

brahmos is supersonic. We had a discussion long time ago stressing how critical this is for a successful hit. its not about weight its about rate of success.

brahmos2 should get improvements in range, etc..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Aug 2009 20:05

vavinash wrote:Despite the Brahmos-A, we still need the air launched nirbhay. A 2.5 tonne missile with a limited 300 km range is not much of a threat for the uruk-hai's up north.

so someone else uses that term too !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2009 20:17

if we want m2k, tejas and mrca launch....has to be small and compact like a KEPD-350/Apache which are all subsonic,stealthy to some extent and < 300km range. jassm isnt for sale and never will be even if it works!

the boeing ALCM was only ever deployed from B1 and B52, likewise the Kh55 from Bear/Blackjack onlee.

so I think no fighter has ever deployed a subsonic or supersonic missile in the > 500km range except jassm..perhaps from F15E.

we need a bomber platform if we want to play that game. whether IL78-b or A321-b is open.

there is no hope that a hypersonic 1000km range missile will be same form
factor as brahmos1. so even the MKI cannot carry it around.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2009 20:27

John wrote:^Reason Su-30mki was choosen was because Russian AF has displayed no interest in air launched Brahmos even for the Su-34 which would be best flanker platform for testing it.

Not meant to be a knock, but, in what have the RuAF shown true interest? They do not have proper funds to think of interest!

Perhaps they are even doing what they are doing only to get funds (from India in this case).

With proposals to build more air craft carriers, I have to suspect that they have interest (navy to use air launched that is).

brahmos2 should get improvements in range, etc..

Can anything "BrahMos" go beyond 300 Kms? MTCR should prevent it. Which is why I feel ManTech has value.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Aug 2009 20:45

NRao wrote: Not meant to be a knock, but, in what have the RuAF shown true interest? They do not have proper funds to think of interest!

They have couple missiles air launched AshM including alfa, yakhont, moskit and Uran. To my knoweledge it looks like AF is content with what it has and currently not funding the development of Alfa or even procuring Uran or Moskit. As for the navy the Su-27k currently cannot carry any stand off weapon from Kuz. so they need to decide whether they want to upgrade the Su-27 or switch to Mig-29ks before deciding what missile they want to go with, either way brahmos/moskit is out of question for Ski-jump launch leaving most likely candidate Uran or Alfa (for Flanker).

NRao wrote:Can anything "BrahMos" go beyond 300 Kms? MTCR should prevent it. Which is why I feel ManTech has value.

Yakhont was listed as having 500 km range for land attack (no low altitude terminal stage).

Speaking of this IAF did procure Crystal Maze for mirage-2000 in small quantity, wonder why they never followed it up with larger order.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2009 20:57

They have couple missiles air launched AshM including alfa, yakhont, moskit and Uran.

true, missed that logic. Sorry.

Yakhont was listed as having 500 km range for land attack (no low altitude terminal stage).

Cannot hand it over to India. 300 Km is the limit.

Which is why, I feel, that India wants to start the ManTech effort (check out a page or so ago).

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 08 Aug 2009 21:17

Ok read up on the posts on previous page. ManTech seems to be a natural progression. Good stuff. mach 8 is super nice. I hope we remain sensitive to the relationship with russians and tread carefully.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Aug 2009 22:31

Yes also not to mention Brahmos is limited to Su-30s which limits the # of launching platforms serverily. Need a stand off missile for MRCA, Mig-29/k, Mirage-2000 and LCA.

I thought that the IAF had the Crystal Maze for the Mirages - still no 300km range. Also, won't the upgraded fulcrums have capability with Kh-59, Kh-31?
Another idea is to work on the air launched sizzler, a MiG-29 SMT/K should easily carry a couple of these.

CM

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Aug 2009 00:54

CM,

No matter what, officially India cannot get a missile that flies greater than 300 Kms. (I think you know that, but ...........)

However, there is a great need for India to build a CM that flies a much longer distance.

The solution has to be Indian.

Or is 300 Km in Russian Siberia = 1000 Kms in Indian physical environment?

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 09 Aug 2009 01:57

NRao wrote:CM,

No matter what, officially India cannot get a missile that flies greater than 300 Kms. (I think you know that, but ...........)

However, there is a great need for India to build a CM that flies a much longer distance.

The solution has to be Indian.

Or is 300 Km in Russian Siberia = 1000 Kms in Indian physical environment?

W can always enter into a Strategic partnership with the Russians, similar to that between US-UK, US-Spain etc. Then Russian Missile exports to India will be exempted from MTCR !

On a serious note, is GTRE tasked with the development of the turbofan engine for the cruise stage of Nirbhay ??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Aug 2009 05:06

India needs Agni missile that can destroy North Korea for its supply of NoDongs to TSP arsenal. The constant proliferation is getting tiresome.

chakkunny · Post by **chakkunny** » 09 Aug 2009 05:48

Dropping out of my lurk mode to swing by an idea.

Folks may be familiar with the NLOS/PAM system. The idea is pack 15, 60km range Vertical launched, Remotely Activated missiles, each having a warhead with just enough firepower to take out a tank or a bunker.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =302957003

I find the concept fascinating for two reasons. First, it is well within the design ability of DRDO. Second, it would be a game changer for us. The entire payload comes to just 1.5 tons. It could be carted or airlifted and hidden, just about anywhere where the IA deploys. In Kargil, we had a Gen. quoting: "The Bofors became a section weapon". An Indian design, reusing our existing knowhow in seekers and VLS launch mechanisms (Nag/Brahmos), and packaged into a containerized and air ( Dhruv ) portable platform, is the ultimate section weapon, for mountain warfare and SF troops. It would be also be largely immune to counter artillery.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Aug 2009 10:20

yes thats a good idea, even for Nag....separate the Namica(pure sensor) from
shooter (trailer or truck parked out of sight or following behind tank cover)
with lot more tubes than Namica, being VL needs no reload time. unleashing
40 Namica in a single salvo @ a tank regiment on the attack would be pure
hell.

btw khanate and rus having their heavy bombers didnt go for stuff like modifying the 21" diameter x 14 ft long tomahawk SLCM for air launch. khan
went for the much larger and longer range boeing ALCM with fixed air intake.

for us:-
- ground launch will cut the range having to climb 30,000ft to get over the
himalayas to strike targets in tibet
- we dont have heavy bombers and unlikely to have any
- brahmos2 will be too bulky even for su30

onlee option is design the Nirbhay form factor from day1 to fit the tomahawk
type dimension for SLCM use and ALCM use together and hand it out
liberally to all strike a/c.

even if its 750km for air launch @ 30,000ft.....will add a formidable ability
to attack rear area targets in tibet and yunnan without putting launch a/c
at risk. the Lhasa railway line for instance could be attacked at a dozen
chokepoints like tunnels and bridges by a single squadron launching from
over sikkim and rendered useless for a month.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Aug 2009 10:51

It will be great if Nirbhay turns out to be a universal missile. Even if not, we do have launch platforms: TU-142, upcoming P-8I, maybe even IL-76 & AN-32. We got to be a bit creative in re-purposing some of these aircrafts. I'd in fact argue that such adapted bomb-trucks are even "necessary" if we want to launch a massed ALCM attack.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Aug 2009 11:23

A senior relative told me he has met Italians, maybe germans too who during WWII were housed in Kolar, KA as POWs. The Brits had a strong contingent at Kolar.

H.B.Krishna · Post by **H.B.Krishna** » 09 Aug 2009 12:15

chakkunny wrote:Dropping out of my lurk mode to swing by an idea.

Folks may be familiar with the NLOS/PAM system. The idea is pack 15, 60km range Vertical launched, Remotely Activated missiles, ............
........... In Kargil, we had a Gen. quoting: "The Bofors became a section weapon". An Indian design, reusing our existing knowhow in seekers and VLS launch mechanisms (Nag/Brahmos),......................

I saw that in NGC documentry, Future Weapons. Sounds simple (as in doable not easy) ....
My jingo specs

Launch Module: A automatic VLS stabilizer + jam proof connectivity + GPS + some recovery mechanism (for fast recovery from aircraft, just like the ones of some UAVs) + self destruct (not to be left for analysis by enemies)
Weapon: Canisterized Nag that can withstand rugged environment for may be few days or weeks...

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 09 Aug 2009 14:20

Nirbhay is terrain-hugging and stealth based cruise missile.

This is a different approach from brahmos-1. Intriguing indeed.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 09 Aug 2009 17:59

Agni-III's Final Development Test This October
The Indian Agni-III intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) is scheduled to undergo its fourth and final development-phase test-firing in October this year. The last test of the missile was over a year ago on May 7 last year (see photo). Scientists at the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL). Significantly, according to sources, this will be the final trial of the Agni-III's development phase. Next year, the ASL and Integrated Test Range (ITR) will make a full effort to conduct two sets of user trials. Godspeed to ASL Director Avinash Chander and his team.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 11 Aug 2009 17:30

What is the significance of such statement? Was it needed in first place

India defines outer limit of weapons programme

There will be no Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, so far considered the litmus for being acknowledged as a bona fide nuclear power.

Instead, India will restrict its weapons delivery to medium-range rockets, aimed at countering only regional threats

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Aug 2009 17:59

Significance is exactly as Adm Mehta said, “We need credible minimum deterrence not against the whole world. We need the capability only with respect to our neighbourhood.”

This is a very wise step reflecting the maturity of the Indian state.

Doesn’t make sense to antagonize/threaten people beyond a 5500 km radius who pose absolutely no threat to our nation.

Vishal Thapar is incorrect and using a flame bait when he says, “The big question is - can a nation become a credible nuclear power by half measures?”

There is nothing “half measure” in a fully functional and effective IRBM and a fully functional and effective nuclear warhead.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Aug 2009 18:06

Nitesh wrote:What is the significance of such statement? Was it needed in first place

India defines outer limit of weapons programme

There will be no Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, so far considered the litmus for being acknowledged as a bona fide nuclear power.

Instead, India will restrict its weapons delivery to medium-range rockets, aimed at countering only regional threats

Nitesh,

Arun_S and others have shown pretty clearly that our missiles actually have far longer ranges than are advertised. A 5,000 km Agni would actually go much further. Given that what's the need to tell the whole world we are going to develop a 10,000 km range missile whose only purpose would be to hit Europe, Japan or North America?

As Sarkar saab says why do we need to atagonise folks far away when we've got enough problems in the neighbourhood.

One other point: I'd take the IBN report with a bucket of salt. It states in its last para

India was the first civilization in the world to conceive of both weapons of mass destruction -- the Brahmastra and the ultimate doctrine of non-violence, Ahimsa.

What does it say for credibility when a defence report has to have something like this in it?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 11 Aug 2009 18:09

Nitesh wrote:India defines outer limit of weapons programme

CNN-IBN is CNN in masquerade. It is essentially American stooge. You could see clearly the dividing line during 123 discussions with communists like The Hindu on one side and American stooge like CNN-IBN on the other side.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Aug 2009 18:13

India was the first civilization in the world to conceive of both weapons of mass destruction -- the Brahmastra and the ultimate doctrine of non-violence, Ahimsa.
What does it say for credibility when a defence report has to have something like this in it?

even after all these years DDM doesn't fail to shock me !

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Aug 2009 18:15

Rahul M wrote:
India was the first civilization in the world to conceive of both weapons of mass destruction -- the Brahmastra and the ultimate doctrine of non-violence, Ahimsa.

What does it say for credibility when a defence report has to have something like this in it?

even after all these years DDM doesn't fail to shock me !

I think the reporter needs a Brahmastra up where the sun never shines.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2009 18:23

TSarkar, Have you come across this quote?

"Naming enemies creates them!" Admiral Cunningham RIN?

However having foresworn long range weapons it should be accomapnied by a mutualde-targetting agreement with the far away powers that have such weapons to make the renunciation equitable.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 11 Aug 2009 18:28

No need to worry abt Mr.Mehta`s comments regarding ICBM capping.

According to indian metrics we still call a missile with 6000km range and 2500kg payload as a long range missile but not an ICBM. when the payload Vs Range is taken into consideration it can throw a bum of sufficient energy to devastate a city no less than 8000km.

This been a long time argument regarding the indian standard metrics as compared to western ones.

No matter what if one agrees or not,US will be our final enemy far away from sub continent.Hence we do need a brahmastra that can be aimed at.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Aug 2009 19:01

jaladipc wrote:No matter what if one agrees or not,US will be our final enemy far away from sub continent.Hence we do need a brahmastra that can be aimed at.

While it always makes good sense to plan for every eventuality. I think we need to think of countering future and final enemies after we've dealt with the present ones who are in the immediate neigbhourhood.

I would point to Admiral Cunningham's famous quote posted by Ramana. Let's not create new problems for now. We already have enough on our plate. IMVHO.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 11 Aug 2009 20:33

While I am normally the biggest hawk, I am gonna take a highly unusual position on 'capping'. (unusual for me, i mean).

IF we did go all out on buidling ICBMs, could it make us the 'jack of all trades, master of none'?

Ie: if we spent x dollars, let's say that amount give us 100 missiles and warheads capable of hitting Pakis, 20 capable of hitting Chinis, and 5 ICBMs.

Would deleting ICBMs boost the number capable of Paki and Chini destruction?

See what I am trying to say? I am not confident of India's will and capability to develop an arsenal capable of hitting short range, medium range, and intercontinental targets.

Rather increase the quality and size of the short and medium range arsenal than chase after the tough ICBM levels.

In return for spurning ICBMs tho, India should have negotiated better terms, ie: it is a BIG compromise for us to do this, so if we do this, Mr USA better give us maximum help in developing the best and largets short and medium arsenal possible.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Aug 2009 20:49

Doesn’t make sense to antagonize/threaten people beyond a 5500 km radius who pose absolutely no threat to our nation.
Well does having ICBMs translate to threatening posture ?, infact countries who feel threatened by India's arsenal to me are the one's who harbor ill will against her and hence it becomes all the more important for us to acquire ICBMs.Going by Admiral's logic US,RU,UK and even FR are a threat to India. And can anyone give it to us in writing that 'xyz' country is not a threat to our country ?

I am surprised a country having been attacked numerous times as India and surrounded by some of the most wonderful and peaceful neighbors and world powers sitting on a high moral perch talks about not antagonizing certain 'countries'.

“We need credible minimum deterrence not against the whole world. We need the capability only with respect to our neighbourhood.”

This has been the India's line of argument since 1947 (or even before) and the results are for everyone to see in 1971 we witnessed certain country sending her fleet without any provocation what is the guarantee that it won't be repeated in future ? .

As for complying with the Chanakian school of thought one can always say that as per NPA logic since Indian Nukes are stone age 1000kg behemoths we need a large delivery vehicle with a huge payload even to hit IR targets.

As for the one's always cowering at the thought of India antagonizing the big -5 by acquiring ICBMs well I do not see how China suffered by going down that route .I don't think a country of 100 Billion plus population needs to justify its need for an ICBM in today's date ...or does it ?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 11 Aug 2009 21:10

I remember reading a long time back (surely in BR) that to prevent India from a retaliatory nuclear counter attack more than one Western nation or Russia China might team up and take out Indian sites. I know what I have written sounds cr@p but I will go look for it in the archives, i am just hoping that someone else remembers the article I am talking about and hopefully remember more info than the half baked gibberish I just wrote. The point is that it is not safe to assume that we have no threats apart from our immediate neighbourhood. In times of war especially a nuclear one you never know who might become friends and enemies. A while back, in Aero India, the F-16's with conformal tanks raised suspicions that it could be used for Pakis to launch an attack from UAE, bomb India and return to Pakistan. In such a scenario wouldn't UAE become an automatric enemy given that its soil has been used for an assault on India? We never know who the true friends are, we will know only in times of need.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Aug 2009 21:30

tsarkar wrote:There is nothing “half measure” in a fully functional and effective IRBM and a fully functional and effective nuclear warhead.

Now thats a billion dollar question , faith works when science fails

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Aug 2009 21:43

Indian "policy" has a few attributes:
a) They normally are reactive. The Kargil syndrome - enemy does something India wakes up and reacts
b) They seem to grow in isolation or a vacuum. Rarely do we read about a reason - why should they provide one? It is reactive
c) Policy is open to discussion by and influence of foreign groups. "Indian" seems to have little significance, "Policy" has, but not to "Indian".
d) Quantitative and qualitative support is rarely provided - again everything is reactive. There is no reason to put the policy into practice until/unless there is a reason to react, so why provide support in any form. When the time comes the support will come, till then we are Sthita
e) ....................... Op Falcon II fizzle
f) ........................ Kargil III ...............

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 11 Aug 2009 21:51

jaladipc wrote:According to indian metrics we still call a missile with 6000km range and 2500kg payload as a long range missile but not an ICBM. when the payload Vs Range is taken into consideration it can throw a bum of sufficient energy to devastate a city no less than 8000km.

Payload vs. Range is not conclusive. Are there not other variables like the velocity that the reentry vehicle can support?

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 11 Aug 2009 21:52

I seriously support a long range missile development and induction ASAP.
And at the same time i do agree that US is not a treat to India atleast for another 5 years from now on.....

If i put some of my ugly words together to use against US,i rather love to put them in such a way to term US as "The Most Ugly Whore on Earth".there are plenty of reasons to justify my wording.It just sleeps with any nation overnight to get its work done.Be it China,Pakistan,Myanmar,Russia,Iran,Venezuela,Cuba,.............

And today it is sleeping with India ,cause the only reason is we add more impulse to its global superiority while confronting china and likes.Who knows it wont sleep with china again to satisfy its goals against India as like during 71.

And i do attest the statement that "Its better to have technology in hand rather than struggling for technology in times of need."Simply means a long range missile capable of hitting targets in American continent ,even as a prototype will give India the respect it needs on International Stage. Powers only respect powers.Today china showing its middle finger to us no matter whether we do have nukes or not is just because we dont have a reliable delivery system to kick its a$$ multiple times.It is the most common sense that a person who enters the battle field first knows the field more than the one enters later on.And here we are the late comers.And to counter this we gotta have to follow the chanikyan philosophy that, it doesnt matter even you enter late into the battle field ,all it matters is how hard you fight against your enemy with how much technologically superior force rather than a basic warrior type overwhelming force.
And he does told that,"Treat no one as your friend and no one as your enemy---As time changes enemy becomes friend and vice versa."
Who knows that the same missile we are developing to hit targets in China might be used again the yankees?

To put all things in the most chronological order,

1962 War with china-----US blackmailed India with Kashmir Issue in return for support against China.
1965 War with pakis-----US supplied arms and ammo to pakistan who initiated the war.
1971 War with pakis-----US used Iran and China support to enhance pakis inventory and sent a carrier to fight in due course against india.
1999 War with pakis-----Pak fought against India with US supplied weaponry.
2001 Nuclear Stand-off-----Again US interfered to save their slave pakistan.

Since US has to save another slave in the south china sea front which is Taiwan against China and China is getting stronger day by day while US economy is getting weaker at the same rate it needs backup to keep its hegemony running on the International level.For that matter it needs India which turned out to be a major play after 71 war in the South Asia.

I did supported the friendship band with US before.and i do support it now.Cause the only reason is china.While coming out of the fantasy and looking at reality we are not exactly a match for china.Hence we need US to play hard ball with china.And when the row over China ends we dont really need US.
At the same time if the row over Taiwan straits is over US dont really need India.

One poster said that apart from the neighborhood we dont have anymore enemies.But its not at all true. We do have enemies in the persian gulf.We do have enemies in the western europe.But these are black sheep's.they only surface when we are out there for help or when we are totally devastated.

Since the days have changed from military point to economical point every one mainly seeks business .Hence China is still the highly ranked loaner to US while Russia is secondly ranked.On the reality side its entirely different.

Bottom line is: We are not sure how long US will sleep with us.Hence suck the milk as much as we can in the mean time.They are doing the same thing with us.So everything we do is justified in the name of GOD.(Greatest Odds of Democrazy

).