Indian Missile Technology Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2008 23:56

If you look at the pictures which show the cap separating and the altitude, the cap function is to provide protection during the cannister launch. It also shows the sophisitication in fire control of the vehicle. Its more likely a K-15 vehicle with a protective cap for cannisterization.

Can some one put up both pics: K-15 & Shaurya together?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Nov 2008 00:25

There are no pictures of the K-15 around. At least open source.
In retrospect, this seems like a land test of the SLBM.
Another interesting thing comes to light. The 30-40 ft hole where the cannister can be placed and which may be filled with water to simulate a SLBM.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 13 Nov 2008 00:26

p_saggu wrote:Why have the cap at all?
Missiles can simply tear through the covering of the cannister cap, or like the russian ICBM's the cap can be taken off before launch.
The plan is for a factory sealed cannister that is weather proof, can be deployed from kashmir to kanyakumari.
Can the same cannister be put to use for a SLBM role, since it seems to have all the ingredients of one

The cap thingie in Brahmos

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Nov 2008 00:30

The cap is used to stabilize the missile - point it in the right direction - once it gets out of the canister. It is then jettisoned.

In the case of K-15 and this current missile, it seems to keep it verticle. In the case of Bhramos, it actually tilts it horizontal in the direction of the flight - old pictures show that.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Nov 2008 00:51

^ ^ ^
This is the aerodynamically shaped cap of the Air launched Brahmos version.

The LACM version has a cynindrical blunt ended cap.
The main use of the cap on the brahmos is to maneuver the front end of the missile from the vls launch to a horizontal plane for cruising. You can see the rocket motors, I think there are 3 of them, firing off several times to stabilize the missile's front end.

This orange plume near the lower end is I think to provide roll correction for the missile. If you look carefully at the two pictures, the missile is rotating in its axis as it ascends (Roll).

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Nov 2008 00:56

The K-15 (From S Unnithan's article in IT)

It is supposed to be a 7 m thing, not a 11m thing.

The Shaurya at 11m this will just fit the ATV. A-3SL is supposed to be bigger and with a 2m dia.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 13 Nov 2008 01:22

joey wrote:Developing a cutting edge SAM is not easy, and when it comes to naval based options one needs some really advanced radars, I mean whats the use of a P15A with not-so-good radars? Do we have a single working AESA radar yet?

wait and watch; in couple of years india will show what it developed before. that is how drdo is working now

As per official reports India is developing the missile, seeker et al and already has supplied Israel with the dual pulse rocket motor, other than all this co-developement it is safe to assume if we really want to make this thing comparable to the likes of Aster 30 et al, radars like mf-star is a must which i dont think, given the time frame of P15A series induction, India is in a position to produce such completely on its own.

israel will provide seeker

On other hand Israel has a long time experience with AESA radars, both technologically and manpowerwise, peoples who have been exposed to such developements before.

it is only time constraint
otherwose radar are increasingly indian strength

IMHO Barak 2 is going to be a seriously kickass missile. Imagine shooting a ball at a empty goalpost, Barak 2 is being designed keeping in mind to get through the goalkeeper from any direction, just the kick should be powerful enough to let the ball cut the air and reach the goalpost.

i agree

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Nov 2008 01:54

In this video of a Russian R-39 launch, the cap can be clearly seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn6_p8DTww

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 13 Nov 2008 02:10

Not that this is going to affect the functionality and accuracy of the missile. But, doesn't the paint coating on the outside of the missile look burnt or disintegrated?

Is it because the missile was launched inside the silo and the heat from the exhaust burnt or melted the coat of paint?

arun wrote:Photo of the Shourya from the PIB website :

Shourya Pic

Guess this is national property and thus free to use .

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 13 Nov 2008 02:20

@GERARD,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r39.htm

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Nov 2008 02:21

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/CLIPS/, go to item #26. Click on the right side to start Brahmos take off.

You can see one puff - just after take off - what seems to rotate it to the left. Then a dual puff - do not know for what. Then another single puff - to prevent further rotation. Then the "cap" is blasted off and off goes the missile.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2008 02:44

I understand the needs of matadoric puffs for cruise missiles especially the ones which correct their path after the initial vertical lift off. Why do we need the puffers for ballistic missiles

For both land and sea sub-surface launch, once out of water or silos, it could potentially throw away the blunt nose that may no longer needed. Is that the intention? or is it used a heat shield during re-entry, then thrown away for final delivery.

I am thinking, why so blunt it should be, and about the drag.. it should be thrown away at some point in the flight. And why is it required for a ballistic missile?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2008 02:47

duh! later realizations.. ignore my questions. I got the answer.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Nov 2008 03:01

Vikram_S wrote:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r39.htm

During lift-off special solid-propellant charges create a gas bubble around the missile considerably reducing hydrodynamic resistance. At the moment of launch a special solid-propellant grain, located on the ARSS, create the gas current protection in the form of cavity, which decreases the hydrodynamic loads on the rocket. Command to the starting of first-stage engine will be given at the moment of the output of rocket from the tube. Ignition of the first stage engine occurs after leaving the tube. With start of the first-stage engine after exiting from the water the rocket for the purpose of providing safety of submarine takes away to the side. Starting system in flight is removed by special engines from the rocket and also it takes away to the side.

This explains the dark exhaust seen at the nose in the R-39 youtube video.

Now there is a lot of black smoke seen here
http://frontierindia.net/album/main.php?g2_itemId=771

Could the cap contain a solid propellant gas bubble generator?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Nov 2008 03:16

aaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggghhhh

I think the Forum rules should include an immediate ban on questions\whines of shoddy paint, sleek looks etc.

damn it - just enjoy the moment

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 13 Nov 2008 03:37

Surya Dude!

I am not whining about the "shoddy paint" or "sleek looks"

And I am enjoying the moment just as you are.

I was just wondering that if the paint can melt or disintegrate from the heat of the exhaust of the missile while escaping from the Silo, will it cause any problems to the missile during the heat of re-entry?

If this sounds like a stupid question or concern, let me know and I will remove it.

Thanks!

Surya wrote:aaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggghhhh

I think the Forum rules should include an immediate ban on questions\whines of shoddy paint, sleek looks etc.

damn it - just enjoy the moment

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2008 03:44

for your viewing pleasure...

Here are the similarities between K15 and Shaurya.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/13/stories ... 700100.htm

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Nov 2008 03:53

no need to delete your post

you can just remove the word "shoddy"

and just ask plainly "whether the pain could have been burnt by the launch"

meanwhile I go back and admire the confusion our guys can create !!

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 13 Nov 2008 04:02

Removed the word "shoddy" from my original post.
Apologies! if it offended anyone...

Surya wrote:no need to delete your post

you can just remove the word "shoddy"

and just ask plainly "whether the pain could have been burnt by the launch"

meanwhile I go back and admire the confusion our guys can create !!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2008 04:24

So its the land version of K-15 as per TSS in Hindu. And will be cannistered and in silos.
Saik thanks. And quite picture.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Nov 2008 04:49

interesting snippet regarding the cap on Russian SLBMs

http://www.wmdinsights.com/I4/R_NewDetails.htm

For the first time in the history of Soviet/Russian submarine-building, “Bulava” will be launched at an angle to the submarine’s course instead of vertically. This should enable submarines to launch missiles without completely stopping as was the case with all previous types of SSBNs. The new launch method also allows elimination of a special “cap” (“cavitator”), which weighed several tons, on top of the missile. On previous types of submarine-launched missiles, this “cap” helped to clear a path through the water for the missile and was dropped once the missile reached the surface.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Nov 2008 07:08

What is the blunt thing which came off? In the earlier picture, the nose did not look conical, now that the thing has come off, it shows the actual nose.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Nov 2008 07:53

the A3SL with his big diameter blunt RV may not use a cap, just tear through the 'fabric' of
the missile tube, then deploy aerospike as it climbs up.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Nov 2008 08:25

This must be it!
The shape of the cap on the Shourya is blunt wilth the head slightly larger than the rest of the cap and the missile diameter.

The larger cap creates the air bubble within which the missile travels to the surface in a subsurface launch. This air bubble is very critical for several reasons.
1. Water must not enter the missile engines at any cost, we have had several instances of US trident missiles failures because of this.
2. The air bubble is a low resistance path for the missile to travel to the surface.
3. Perhaps it has a role in a silent launch of the missile. A very critical issue if the sub intends to slip away after launch

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 13 Nov 2008 09:03

Where is the Khyberdurra Mullah Mijjileulla? May be hiding in Khyberdurra. The pious birathers are waiting to hear pious Khutbah from this Adminullah. Also the bious expects to see the bicture of SRDE Shaurya standing alongside TFTA Agni-I with the Lahori logic and Madrasa maths as usual.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2008 09:07

yes, the cap for silo launches does perhaps having very similar needs as in sub-water surface launch, since silos(say 30-50ft underground) could be filled up (clogged) with rain water (potentially). dual use tech indeed.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Nov 2008 09:08

Water? If it's a land-based version then the silos themselves can be made water proof, which looks more cost-effective to me since a silo-can be used to launch many missiles.
Unless of course, DRDO wants to give a new name to an old missile and test it in garb of land-based version to hide some capabilities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Nov 2008 09:22

p_saggu,

My understanding was that the K-15 was "underwater" and this one was over water/land.

K-15 I thought had a air shroud as it exited the sub, right?

These caps are needed to "right" the missile, or plumb it. That is it. True verticle.

Right?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Nov 2008 09:30

Perhaps both.
1. Air bubble
2. Stabilize the missile after it breaks the surface - horizontal for cruise, vertical for ballistic trajectory.

And in this case perhaps because the missile is not going to follow a purely ballistic path, give it just the correct direction to the target?

And and, Those fins are placed so that this missile can perform amazing nrityam whilst in the air to defeat any ABM

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Nov 2008 09:55

For some reason I just get a feeling that there is something more than what meets the eye...
1. 600km is too less a range to do anything against China
2. There are enough missiles for Pakistan, frankly in case of all-out war with Pakistan this particular missile with all it's maneuvers looks like a overkill. Killing a mosquito with a canon!
3. There haven't been such conflicting news in media of this degree before, earlier it was said that it is a K-15 missile launched from surface. Next comes an entirely new missile altogether of which not even a rumour was heard of.

I just feel that this is a precursor to some major things to come...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2008 09:59

That cap is for canister/tube launch. Once it clears the canister/tube it gets jettisoned. Its not aerodynamic as its quite bluff. The fact that it gets jettisoned in visual range is a clue.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 13 Nov 2008 10:13

If this missile is for the Army, then there is a greater possibility that this will replace the Prithvi and two of these missiles can be carried on a launch vehicle instead of one. It makes no sense to put it in Silos 600 km away from the target.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Nov 2008 10:26

IMO, it is not worth putting 600 KM range missile in a silo - probably the silo will cost more than the missile..Further why do you need a cap (with all its tricky releasing mechanism) for the missile if it is to be stored in a silo?

May be they are trying out various release mechanisms on land before testing it underwater. Then again, why publicize it, since they have hardly done it before for this particular missile.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Nov 2008 10:59

It is NOT a silo based missile. That option doesn't hold water (pun intended).

Then why was it launched from a pit? And not from the existing underwater system? Was the underwater platform unserviceable? Was the test regime didn't need underwater launch?

Or (here is the scoop!) was it targeted for a Shipboard application? Dhanush with the Prithvi platform is gone. Is it the new shipboard missile?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Nov 2008 11:02

Or is it a shore based anti ship missile

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Nov 2008 11:04

shore-based anti ship BALLISTIC missile??

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 13 Nov 2008 11:14

From the report posted by SaiK
http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/13/stories ... 700100.htm

Just as the K-15 (Sagarika) missile could rise from the water and knife into the air, Shourya could lift off from a silo on the ground and pierce the sky. “Since the missile is fired from underground, it cannot be detected by conventional satellite imaging,” Dr. Selvamurthy said.

As Shourya was canisterised it was easy to transport, maintain and operate. Both its stages were powered by solid propellants. The Chief Controller called Shourya “a totally new missile.”

While the K-15 missile has an underwater booster and an air booster, Shourya has a booster underground and an air booster

The bolded part has gotten me thinking. Sometime back on this thread, there was a discussion about the US planning to use canisterised missile in a 4x4 configuration placed underground and remotely activated and fired off. Of course this is all from memory. So crazy as this may sound - maybe this is a similar version for our Northern neighbours. It may not be easy to just cart the missile canisters around and bury them without being detected, but with enough care it's possible. Again, just my wild imagination running riot.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Nov 2008 11:19

This still looks somewhat valid for testing a 600km missile. Maybe the range will added in later stages.
It may also sound a little far fetched, but we might also have cannisterized ICBM in decade or so...

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 13 Nov 2008 11:20

krishnan wrote:Or is it a shore based anti ship missile

Shourya is ballistic missile. So targeting would be an issue since the ship isn't a static target and the missile can't possibly receive any mid course target updates. Whattype of warhead would needed to cause unacceptable damage to the ships? a tactical nuke? Also cruise missiles are more suitable for ships or relatively slower mobile targets.

bart · Post by **bart** » 13 Nov 2008 11:23

ChandraS wrote:From the report posted by SaiK
http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/13/stories ... 700100.htm

Just as the K-15 (Sagarika) missile could rise from the water and knife into the air, Shourya could lift off from a silo on the ground and pierce the sky. “Since the missile is fired from underground, it cannot be detected by conventional satellite imaging,” Dr. Selvamurthy said.

As Shourya was canisterised it was easy to transport, maintain and operate. Both its stages were powered by solid propellants. The Chief Controller called Shourya “a totally new missile.”

While the K-15 missile has an underwater booster and an air booster, Shourya has a booster underground and an air booster

The bolded part has gotten me thinking. Sometime back on this thread, there was a discussion about the US planning to use canisterised missile in a 4x4 configuration placed underground and remotely activated and fired off. Of course this is all from memory. So crazy as this may sound - maybe this is a similar version for our Northern neighbours. It may not be easy to just cart the missile canisters around and bury them without being detected, but with enough care it's possible. Again, just my wild imagination running riot.

They have got a cannisterized short range missile battery of 4 or 6 missiles in a block, that can be dropped off by helicopter or C130 and then remotely targetted and fired. I think those are for 250 km range IIRC and it looked very compact when they showed it on Discovery Future Weapons. This is nowhere near the size of our missiles, it looked like a 6x6x6 ft block which can be fitted onto the back of a Humvee.