Indian Missile Technology Discussion

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Dec 2008 18:06

the NAMICA might well represent the future direction of tanks if it is up armoured a bit and IA is flexible anough to absorb it.

Unlikely. The NAMICA has a fitout of 8 missiles, ie, 8 shots. Most tanks carry 40 odd shells - APFSDS type, tank busting. No armoured force will accept a depleted "firepower". The armour too will have to be significanly upped - currently its a BMP chassis.

NAMICA as it exists now is a perfect candidate for air deployable and rapid reaction forces. with some added protection (it would still be light enough to be deployed by IL-76) and add-ons (like an external 12.7mm gun controlled from inside the crew compartment) NAMICA is best suited to be the light tank that IA is looking for to serve in its high altitude formations or even an air-mobile armoured formation.
the NAMICA might well represent the future direction of tanks if it is up armoured a bit and IA is flexible anough to absorb it.

I remember an US army/other govt inst. report that picked up the NAMICA as the first of a type of vehicle on the modern battlefield.
NAMICA as it exists now is a perfect candidate for air deployable and rapid reaction forces. with some added protection (it would still be light enough to be deployed by IL-76) and add-ons (like an external 12.7mm gun controlled from inside the crew compartment) NAMICA is best suited to be the light tank that IA is looking for to serve in its high altitude formations or even an air-mobile armoured formation.

The problem IMHO will be the logistics chain. An armoured missile carrier will have a really long logisitics chain (comoared to either a light tank or a jeep mounted ATGM) - whther there is enough in the Nag to merit identifying a separate doctrine? Unless one has already been identified!(:

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 27 Dec 2008 20:50

namica logistics is almost same as BMP series. so nag logistics is not so different at all from regular army logistics.

nag carry 12 missiles not 8, with 8 ready to fire and 4 stored, and there will also be obviously reload missiles.

there is long history of using ATGM dedicated carriers - pakistani use m113 armed with bakhtar shikan ATGM launchers

south africa developed RATEL ZT3
http://www.warwheels.net/RatelAntiTankindex.html

germany developed WIESEL 1 MK 20/TOW

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/german_army.htm
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/imag ... tow_04.jpg

GERMANY also has Jaguar 2 TOW Anti tank vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_2

GERMANY also had mast mounted anti tank launcher like Nag

SWITZERLAND has mobile Piranha IFV based ANTI TANK destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pzj_T ... e_2006.jpg

So there is long history of countires using ATGM tank destroyers for various purpose and now India will have Nag to similarly boost effectivness of infantry and light armoured formation

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 20:53

somnath wrote:
the NAMICA might well represent the future direction of tanks if it is up armoured a bit and IA is flexible anough to absorb it.
Unlikely. The NAMICA has a fitout of 8 missiles, ie, 8 shots. Most tanks carry 40 odd shells - APFSDS type, tank busting. No armoured force will accept a depleted "firepower". The armour too will have to be significanly upped - currently its a BMP chassis.

please know the facts first, NAMICA carries 12 missiles.
the missiles can be expected to have better range, lethality and a much higher chance of hitting a target than any tank round.
it's not for nothing that the army wanted missile firing ability from its tanks.

secondly, if any army insists on both protection and same number of rounds, as much as on a MBT it would not be a light tank !

there has to be a compromise between the three factors :
a) lethality and range of each round
b) protection
c) number of rounds

you simply can't insist on having all and if there has to be a compromise it has to be in option (c) because you should not be compromising on the other two.
a PT-76 type tank with a low caliber main gun would be ineffectual in today's battlefield.

there is also the fact that few of the tanks in GW1 actually fired more than 50% of their shells, IIRC.

thirdly, by this time DRDO knows the BMP-2 inside out, having churned out a number of derivative designs. at 14 odd tonnes BMP-2 has enough weight margin to incorporate some armour and a higher rated engine to go with it and still stay air mobile.

somnath wrote:
NAMICA as it exists now is a perfect candidate for air deployable and rapid reaction forces. with some added protection (it would still be light enough to be deployed by IL-76) and add-ons (like an external 12.7mm gun controlled from inside the crew compartment) NAMICA is best suited to be the light tank that IA is looking for to serve in its high altitude formations or even an air-mobile armoured formation.
the NAMICA might well represent the future direction of tanks if it is up armoured a bit and IA is flexible anough to absorb it.

I remember an US army/other govt inst. report that picked up the NAMICA as the first of a type of vehicle on the modern battlefield.
NAMICA as it exists now is a perfect candidate for air deployable and rapid reaction forces. with some added protection (it would still be light enough to be deployed by IL-76) and add-ons (like an external 12.7mm gun controlled from inside the crew compartment) NAMICA is best suited to be the light tank that IA is looking for to serve in its high altitude formations or even an air-mobile armoured formation.

The problem IMHO will be the logistics chain. An armoured missile carrier will have a really long logisitics chain (comoared to either a light tank or a jeep mounted ATGM) - whther there is enough in the Nag to merit identifying a separate doctrine? Unless one has already been identified!(:

well that beats all common sense !

first of all you insist on comparing the logistics trail of a tankish missile carrier (with much much better protection and mobility, not to mention that NAG or an equivalent missile's supporting equipment can't be fitted on to a jeep in all likelihood) with an ATGM armed jeep

even apples and oranges is a better comparison !

secondly, notwithstanding the fact that there is NO light tank design that fits IA's requirement to a T, you claim that a de novo light tank design will have lesser logistics trail than the NAMICA -- a vehicle which is a direct derivative of the BMP-2 (the automotive parts are mostly identical for the two) a vehicle that the Indian Army operates in the thousands !

bottomline, armies will increasingly move towards missiles in lieu of guns, a similar one to what we saw in naval technology. it's just a question of whether IA wants to ride the crest or follow it.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 27 Dec 2008 21:29

air mobility is a very good plus point for NAMICA
for air transport, units of NAMICA + BMP can sufficiently boost light infantry (para brigade) or any deployed formation which needs boost against tanks

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Dec 2008 21:35

somnath wrote:Unlikely. The NAMICA has a fitout of 8 missiles, ie, 8 shots. Most tanks carry 40 odd shells - APFSDS type, tank busting. No armoured force will accept a depleted "firepower". The armour too will have to be significanly upped - currently its a BMP chassis.

NAMICA is not meant to be a tank. It can launch 8 missiles in quick succession taking out 8 tanks at long distance. Pull back. Load four more and fire at four more of enemy tanks and move out of the area.

Advantages
1.Take out enemy tanks at long ranges.
2. Top attack capability.
3. Cost effective solution to destroy tanks.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Dec 2008 21:37

NAMICA does not present any new battle concept (i.e. Destroyer), and is already used by a number of countries. Even Bakis have tank destroyers, based on M113 IFV and armed with TOW.

Armor protection is the least of its worries as its supposed to work at standoff ranges. At closer ranges its supposed to fall back, that's why its supposed to be agile and fast (hence based on IFV). Although its armor protection can be increased to match current standards of IFVs.
NAMICA if deployed, will be used in hunter killer groups i.e. it will use terrain masking to hide and elevate its launcher to aquire and launch weapon.

tank destroyer are not designed for frontal attacks, that the job of MBT.

edit: - uddu already covered most of what i said

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 21:59

uddu, you are true that NAMICA in its current avatar is not a tank.

but do you remember a recent report that mentioned that IA is looking for light tanks for its mountain formations and for rapid reaction force ?
an up armoured NAMICA with an external gun would fit in nicely in that niche not to mention the significant advantages offered by air mobility. that's not a chance IA should pass up.

sid, while the destroyer concept is not new the concept of a dedicated missile armed destroyer w/o wasting space on passenger carrying ability is fairly new. the jaguar is the only other example that comes to mind. the other examples of ATGM armed ICVs carried at most 2 or 3 missiles.

such a vehicle is not meant for frontal attacks, nor is anybody arguing for it. and the scenarios you mention are rightly the ones NAMICA is envisaged for.
but yes, with a little imagination the NAMICA can be developed into an innovative yet effective light tank concept. mind you, a light tank is not a MBT (duh !) and is not supposed to lead frontal attacks !

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 27 Dec 2008 22:14

rahulm --> there was a german tank destroyer just like NAG, missiles on a box on mast

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 22:17

vikram, which ? I only know of the jaguar2.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Dec 2008 22:36

Rahul M wrote:uddu, you are true that NAMICA in its current avatar is not a tank.

but do you remember a recent report that mentioned that IA is looking for light tanks for its mountain formations and for rapid reaction force ?
an up armoured NAMICA with an external gun would fit in nicely in that niche not to mention the significant advantages offered by air mobility. that's not a chance IA should pass up.

NAMICA cannot become a light tank. Fit a gun and it becomes BMP-II. Also it will not be possible to deploy NAMICA without support of tanks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2008 22:42

uddu wrote:.......
NAMICA cannot become a light tank. Fit a gun and it becomes BMP-II.

why so ? some reason please !
can you find no difference between a gun armed NAMICA and a BMP-2 ?

Also it will not be possible to deploy NAMICA without support of tanks.

what tanks ? why not ? again, some reasons supplied would be nice.

if you intend to reply, please do so in the artillery and armour thread.
this discussion is increasingly going OT.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 27 Dec 2008 23:32

its always the case of missing the forest for the trees isn't it, so if you have to cover a 25*25 sq km tract of sparsely populated targets infested with SAMs, do you want to use LGBs, cluster munitions or multiple missile strikes?

I am interested in immobilization and morale sapping of the enemy which tends to end the war quickly, not bloodbath or escalation.

depending on the value of targets and threat of SAMs, there could be scenarios where using the SMART munition/NAG to increase the stand off range of an MKI is helpful vs. using imported LGBs. A step further would be to neutralize the area using an air launched booster rocket with smart munitions warhead increasing standoff range...

from another perspective, we had a scenario long time ago where govt. employees believed that using computers takes away their jobs or sidelines them.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Dec 2008 06:38

A lot of the ideas being examined are quite good. But my concern is that the IA has no (at least known) doctrine for tracked missile carriers. IA already used the BMPs with ATGM capacity (4 Konkur shots AFAIK). Is the NAMICA designed to replace the BMP? How much personnel carriage "penalty" does NAMICA have?

Most ATGM carriers in the world today are "dual tasked" - they are troop carriers (jeeps/IFVs) as well as have the ability to fire ATGMs. Dedicated ATGM carriers are primarily used in very niche roles - recce and surveillance units (as Rohitvats pointed out for the British Army), ditto for the US Army (ATGM Strykers are used mostly in the recce units).

The quesion of logistics is always an "either or", a trade off. For example, if a para unit today uses jeep mounted ATGMs, and X-number of jeeps with its attendant logistics can be mounted in an AN32 with a company of paras, how many NAMICAs can they load, with NAMICA's logistics - and how does the whole thing add up in terms of firepower and mobility of the unit? Similarly, for a para unit with certain assumptions of mobility on the ground thru BMPs, how many extra NAMICAs would be needed for the same mobility?

The point is that an operational doctrine for a "wide ranging" usage for NAG is required. Mind you, the missiles being used in the current ATGM carriers in service are all capable of usage thru other platforms, primarily in heli/MANportable/jeep-carriage modes (TOW, or even Bakhtar Shikan!) - for NAG to be a widely used in the services, it needs to also be "open architecture"!

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 28 Dec 2008 07:22

NAMICA = RCL rifle mounted jeep replacement

. It is replacing neither Tanks nor IFV. NAMICA has longer punch than MBT.

Wasn't there a battle b/w Iraqi tanks and Allied TOW mounted IFV in gulf war I?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Dec 2008 07:56

NAMICA = RCL rifle mounted jeep replacement . It is replacing neither Tanks nor IFV. NAMICA has longer punch than MBT.

Dont think so - RCLs are being/can be replaced with jeep-mounted ATGMs - NAMICA is a different logistics train altogether. And MBT? Many MBTs fire ATGMs these days.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 28 Dec 2008 08:14

somnath wrote:
NAMICA = RCL rifle mounted jeep replacement . It is replacing neither Tanks nor IFV. NAMICA has longer punch than MBT.
Dont think so - RCLs are being/can be replaced with jeep-mounted ATGMs - NAMICA is a different logistics train altogether. And MBT? Many MBTs fire ATGMs these days.

That doesn't mean any thing that fires ATGM can replace MBT does it? (BTW there aren't that many tanks firing ATGM). NAMICA will have same logistic train as BMPII, nothing new.

All this OT for this thread...arty/armour thread is the place.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 28 Dec 2008 12:04

Gurus are Brahmos anti ship missiles being deployed off coasts (Gujarat, etc) to guard against PN destroyer and frigates sneak attacks???

I think the Kach and Saurashtra industrial area and ports are particularly vulnerable

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Dec 2008 12:52

Not sure if anyone connected the dots and see that Shourya was predicted first on BR under the name Prithvi-III. On BR's missile article for prithvi-III I had predicted the likelyhood of it being a 2 stage missile with diameter of 0.75meter. I had intentionally put the range to only 600km because no one would have believed if I said the range is in excess of 700km that ROCKSIM was telling me . Notice the Prithvi-III rocket motor picture turned out to the real and correct one.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html

Just some self patting .... .. . but hay if one earns the brickbats when he is wrong, what is wrong in enjoying the fortitudious bookey?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 28 Dec 2008 16:32

Just some self patting .... .. . but hay if one earns the brickbats when he is wrong, what is wrong in enjoying the fortitudious bookey?

Arun Saar...You rock

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2008 19:36

Arun_S wrote: Just some self patting .... .. . but hay if one earns the brickbats when he is wrong, what is wrong in enjoying the fortitudious bookey?

Well you've certainly earned the kudos time and time again.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Dec 2008 21:48

Old habits die hard and old assumptions too i guess.

A rocket motor is not identified only by dimension but also by other parameters like ISP etc.

DRDO has developed a state-of-the-art case-bonded HTPB-based composite propellant with low burn rate of 4.3 mm/s at 50 KSC. This solid propellant rocket motor (dia 740/620 mm, length 6 m), made of 250 grade maraging steel, consists of a composite nozzle with metallic backup and lined with carbon phenolic liners. The motor is capable of generating 16 ton thrust for 38 s duration. Pyrogen igniter developed by DRDO has been successfully used for the first time for this motor.

I guess it is my last post.

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Dec 2008 23:11

Arun ji you are accepted as the resident Brain of BRF (BOB)

.Seriously now didnt APJ accept your abilities

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Dec 2008 03:27

Two flight tests of Nag missile successful

Two flight tests of Nag missile successful

HYDERABAD: Two flight tests of the third-generation anti-tank Nag missiles were successfully carried out by the Army in the deserts of Rajasthan during day and night on Sunday, as part of ongoing winter trials.

While the first missile, launched from the dedicated carrier Namica at 1655 hrs, homed in on the moving target at a range of 1.8 kms in nine seconds and destroyed it in a “top-attack mode,” the second Nag, fired at 2200 hrs against a derelict tank, also proved to be equally lethal and smashed the target, covering a distance of 3.1 kms, according to Nag’s project director S.S. Mishra.

He said the entire system for both trials was handled by the Army, which is conducting the final user trials as a prelude to the induction of the day-and-night, advanced, hit-to-kill missile, said to be superior to Spike of Israel and Javelin, U.S.A., in terms of range (four km) and lethality.

Two more flight tests will be conducted on Monday and another trial on December 30.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Dec 2008 03:30

Kanson wrote: Old habits die hard and old assumptions too i guess.

A rocket motor is not identified only by dimension but also by other parameters like ISP etc.

DRDO has developed a state-of-the-art case-bonded HTPB-based composite propellant with low burn rate of 4.3 mm/s at 50 KSC. This solid propellant rocket motor (dia 740/620 mm, length 6 m), made of 250 grade maraging steel, consists of a composite nozzle with metallic backup and lined with carbon phenolic liners. The motor is capable of generating 16 ton thrust for 38 s duration. Pyrogen igniter developed by DRDO has been successfully used for the first time for this motor.
I guess it is my last post.

Reminds me of the old Onida advertisement that expresses the feeling so beautifully.

Neighbor's envy, Owners Pride

Many on this forum know what I mean.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 29 Dec 2008 05:19

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote: Old habits die hard and old assumptions too i guess.

A rocket motor is not identified only by dimension but also by other parameters like ISP etc.
I guess it is my last post.
Reminds me of the old Onida advertisement that expresses the feeling so beautifully.

Neighbor's envy, Owners Pride

Many on this forum know what I mean.

Does that mean you're rejecting Kansons claim?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Dec 2008 09:15

Bhai saab I know my subject and the context of said comment, and am just responding it in measured way. I onlee Hindi medium esstudent, & bith my inglis I see no claim, hear no claim. I not beat about the bush.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Dec 2008 09:56

For Laymen can someone clarify Kanson's comment in simple terms?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 29 Dec 2008 10:30

Vivek K wrote:For Laymen can someone clarify Kanson's comment in simple terms?

Here is my guess. Shourya is 10m tall and has two stages a short underground booster stage and an air booster stage.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/14/stories ... 151500.htm

The quoted motor spec says it is 6m long and generates 16 tonnes thrust for 38s duration. It cannot be
underground booster if its 6m long, that stage is to just get out of ground. It cannot be air booster if it
burns out in 38s, since shourya went 600km in a non-ballistic trajectory with roll maneuvre for cooling.
So I guess he is saying that this motor wasn't used in Shourya.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Dec 2008 14:58

As far as Shourya is concerned, I finished writing a 3 page article on it for publication in defense magazine. I will put that online before 26 Jan 09, pls bear with me.

That article will answer the question on booster and main stage motor as well warhead and range information. And BTW that 6 meter long motor IS used in Shourya.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Dec 2008 19:50

Can Shourya be used aboard our larger naval warships instead of Brahmos.perhasps in an inclined mode is not possible to fit in VLS silos?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Dec 2008 20:58

That's a very old idea. Here's a pic of the old Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi fitted with four Polaris tubes in 1961 fiting one. So were some US cruisers.

http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/Alma ... 0432dg.jpg

Reason subs is becase they're inherently stealthy that increases their survivability. Rule of thumb is that its hard to detect a sub unless it reveals itself.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2008 21:04

Philip wrote:Can Shourya be used aboard our larger naval warships instead of Brahmos.perhasps in an inclined mode is not possible to fit in VLS silos?

Emm ... not a bad idea to arm capital ships ( new 4x P-15B and 7x P-17A ) with 10 VLS modules of Shourya each, VLS launch should be possible from a moving ship, also thanks to its compact nature and ready to fire capability , its footprint on ships will be small and very much VLS capable

Shourya gives a warhead/range flexibility better than Tomahawk cruise missile and CEP should be in single digit as well , with a penetrating capacity many times over any damn cruise missile including supersonic . Just my 2 cents..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2008 21:08

tsarkar wrote:That's a very old idea. Here's a pic of the old Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi fitted with four Polaris tubes in 1961 fiting one. So were some US cruisers.

http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/Alma ... 0432dg.jpg

Reason subs is becase they're inherently stealthy that increases their survivability. Rule of thumb is that its hard to detect a sub unless it reveals itself.

Tsarkar , for nuclear armed role yes sub is preferred because of its discrete nature , but what about conventional role ? one can still arm Shourya with conventional warhead and CEP being in single digit ( perhaps pinpoint with GLONASS/Indian Satellite Navigation ) it can increase the fighting and reach potential of Capital ships manifold , what do you think ?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 29 Dec 2008 22:34

Austin wrote:
Philip wrote:Can Shourya be used aboard our larger naval warships instead of Brahmos.perhasps in an inclined mode is not possible to fit in VLS silos?
Emm ... not a bad idea to arm capital ships ( new 4x P-15B and 7x P-17A ) with 10 VLS modules of Shourya each, VLS launch should be possible from a moving ship, also thanks to its compact nature and ready to fire capability , its footprint on ships will be small and very much VLS capable

Shourya gives a warhead/range flexibility better than Tomahawk cruise missile and CEP should be in single digit as well , with a penetrating capacity many times over any damn cruise missile including supersonic . Just my 2 cents..

This will basically lead to our own ticonderoga class

SM1-4 = Barak NG
Harpoon = Brahmos
Tomahawk = Shourya
ASROC? = SS-15/16??
RAMS/Phalanx = Barak I

I like it

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 29 Dec 2008 22:54

So do we have re-loadable Shaurya VLS or one time usable ? If re-loadable what will be the optimum number to be carried on each warship ?
Any idea what the cost of each Shaurya is going to be ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Dec 2008 00:05

reloading heavy missiles on board ships is mostly impractical. only the russians tried it IIRC but have moved out of it.

Austin, unless nuclear armed that CEP won't be effective against moving targets. I don't think it can be fed target data through datalink like cruise missiles nor will it have an on board seeker.that means it will be a one trick pony, usable against fixed land targets only.

against land attack you are better off with SSBNs, as tsarkar says they are much more stealthier and hence survivable.
a BM armed cruiser with land only attack ability and possibly nuclear tipped would just get too much attention for its own good.

there's a reason why the then superpowers agreed to strip their surface ships off nukes, it doesn't make much sense ! unless you believe world peace as the motive of course !

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 30 Dec 2008 00:10

Philip saar: Here are some excerpts from the Shourya article on the subject:

Shourya is a compact, slender, two-stage, solid fuel missile designed as a wooden round. The missile development was initiated as project K15 and was first flight tested on 27 October 2004 in the guise of solid fueled Prithvi-III . It is stored, deployed and launched in a fiberglass composite canister, which is easy to handle, mobile and can be flexibly deployed on different types of surface and sub-surface platforms. Shourya and Sagarika share a common design.... . . .

Naval version is called Sagarika while the land based version is called Shourya. ... . . .

Sagarika will be deployed on submarines and very likely on ‘Sukanya’ class naval vessels too.... . . .

Notice that Sagarika is a Naval missile not just submarine. I was studying Dhanush platform with Prithvi being replaced by Sagarika, that I think will not happen, because a stabelized platform is a requirement for Prithvi that lifts off on it liquid fueled engine, for a canister launched submarine missile that has good control on launch perturbations there is no need for stabilized launch platform(Dhanush) and vertically arranged canister will do just fine. Canister packaging lends it to be a wooden round, that makes it even more attractive for naval use compare to storing the missile separate from its launcher. The folded fin packaging makes its storage foot print no bigger than a compact storage container.

Definition of wooden round:

A “wooden round” missile is delivered to ships and submarines as an all-up-round (AUR), which includes the missile that flies the mission, the booster that starts its flight, and the container (canister for ships and capsule for submarines) that protects it during transportation, storage and stowage, and acts as a launch tube. Such an ammunition has almost 100% reliability, very long shelf life, and requires no special storage, maintenance, or handling.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 30 Dec 2008 01:25

Shourya's operational objectives in a conventional role looks kind of like that HyStrike concept that US was toying with. Faster response time than cruise missiles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Dec 2008 11:14

Rahul M wrote: Austin, unless nuclear armed that CEP won't be effective against moving targets. I don't think it can be fed target data through datalink like cruise missiles nor will it have an on board seeker.that means it will be a one trick pony, usable against fixed land targets only.

against land attack you are better off with SSBNs, as tsarkar says they are much more stealthier and hence survivable.
a BM armed cruiser with land only attack ability and possibly nuclear tipped would just get too much attention for its own good.

there's a reason why the then superpowers agreed to strip their surface ships off nukes, it doesn't make much sense ! unless you believe world peace as the motive of course !

So I am talking of only Conventional Warhead and not nuclear , and I made it clear a Nuclear armed BM on surface ship is not good for the health of ship itself as they become a prime target.

A convetional armed Shourya with 1 Ton warhead is as much of use as any Tomahawk with conventional armed cruise missile , both have single digit accuracy , Shourya has faster time to target and difficut to intercept than any cruise missile ( you may get variable range for that payload depending on the trajectory you choose to file , Energy Effecient or DT )

You can also take care of semi-mobile target by Shourya or CM if you have good real time intelligence , I can bet a Shourya can do the job better than any Cruise missile because of short time of flight to target (STT) , that was one of the rational of converting Trident SLBM to conventional role given by US ( STT and Accuracy ) to deal with time critical targets on which real time intel is available.

For a true land mobile target ( mobile rail system or TEL ) , it will be any way be difficult ( impossible ) for any cruise missile , unless you are talking of slow moving ships viz a viz anti ship cruise missile