Indian Missile Technology Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Postby asbchakri » 08 Aug 2008 16:44

Kartman wrote:
The main constraint with Nag (or practically any other ATGM for that matter, IMHO) is the range of the fire-control system, whether IIR or MMW based. A detection/tracking/locking range of ~10 km, it's effective to deploy it only on slow-flying, highly-manoeuvrable aircraft, whether helos or fixed-wing (like the A-10 or Su-25). Esp. given typical MANPADs ranges of ~6 km...

Increasing the range of the missile itself is less of an issue.


Only the Helos can be used for carrying NAG, and i dont think they can be carried on Jags, but maybe ? LCA not sure though.

can they be carried on UCAVS or any UAV currently with us be modified to carry one? :?:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 08 Aug 2008 16:58

it would be waste to use the DPSA jags for the mud mover role.
as kartman says , in absence of specialized CAS a/c in IAF it would be the floggers and fishbeds which would do the CAS job. they would be the possible candidates for nag integration.
Rahul M wrote:Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.

that's a typo, I meant the mig-27s.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6997
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Anujan » 08 Aug 2008 17:27

Kartman wrote:The Nag missile itself is ~42 kgs... with a launcher as well as the associated fire-control systems, this is way too heavy for a typical 2-man ATGM team.

But if one were to repackage things along the lines of:

Kartman-saar,
Nag needs to be reworked, the current config wont do. Most man portable ATGMs have soft launch to minimize backblast (a smaller charge propels it out of the tube, and it travels a few meters before the main motors kick in), Nag needs soft launch ability. Apart from that 4km is too much range for infantry, the effective range should be halved. Man portable ATGMs have a defensive role and sighting and aiming at 4km is a bit of a stretch. Lighter man portable missiles are wire guided and the guidance unit is in the launcher and not the missile that makes the missile even lighter.

Maybe if all this is done, we may get a man portable Nag thats about 20kgs

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 08 Aug 2008 17:34

nag as it exists now is purely meant for vehicle carriage. IA has already ordered a lot of milan-2s
(version ?) and BDL has started production IIRC. desi MANPATM would have a better chance with the next order.

Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartman » 08 Aug 2008 17:54

lakshmic wrote:
Kartman wrote:The Nag missile itself is ~42 kgs... with a launcher as well as the associated fire-control systems, this is way too heavy for a typical 2-man ATGM team.

But if one were to repackage things along the lines of:

Kartman-saar,
Nag needs to be reworked, the current config wont do. Most man portable ATGMs have soft launch to minimize backblast (a smaller charge propels it out of the tube, and it travels a few meters before the main motors kick in), Nag needs soft launch ability. Apart from that 4km is too much range for infantry, the effective range should be halved. Man portable ATGMs have a defensive role and sighting and aiming at 4km is a bit of a stretch. Lighter man portable missiles are wire guided and the guidance unit is in the launcher and not the missile that makes the missile even lighter.

Maybe if all this is done, we may get a man portable Nag thats about 20kgs


Well, the main point of Nag is as an offensive, tank-busting mijjile with large stand-off range... whittling it down to a defensive ATGM would mean that it loses this USP. Plus, it'd be a bit of a waste of an IIR seeker to hit things at ~1-2 km, esp. when it can't do the top-attack thingie ... CAG, CVC, etc. would be after ur a$$ if u dared do anything like that :P

The new CLGM that was recently exhibited would be more apt for this sort of defensive, man-portable role.

What I was speculating about was a stand-alone single-tube launcher (perhaps jeep-mounted), as a replacement for a Namica that has a larger logistical tail, can't be air-transported/-dropped, and might have limitations in certain terrain. No need to worry about the soft-launch, since it wouldn't be meant for built-up areas anyway :)

Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartman » 08 Aug 2008 17:57

Rahul M wrote:it would be waste to use the DPSA jags for the mud mover role.
as kartman says , in absence of specialized CAS a/c in IAF it would be the floggers and fishbeds which would do the CAS job. they would be the possible candidates for nag integration.
Rahul M wrote:Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.

that's a typo, I meant the mig-27s.


Yeah... also, the MiG 21/23/27 might be a bit too fast flying for the tank-busting role, but that's a different story altogether ! I wish we had taken the Ajeet further into an IJT/AJT/CAS plane :((

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby asbchakri » 08 Aug 2008 18:13

Kartman wrote:
Rahul M wrote:it would be waste to use the DPSA jags for the mud mover role.
as kartman says , in absence of specialized CAS a/c in IAF it would be the floggers and fishbeds which would do the CAS job. they would be the possible candidates for nag integration.
Rahul M wrote:Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.

that's a typo, I meant the mig-27s.


Yeah... also, the MiG 21/23/27 might be a bit too fast flying for the tank-busting role, but that's a different story altogether ! I wish we had taken the Ajeet further into an IJT/AJT/CAS plane :((


We could have if not for that bleedin engine problem :x

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 08 Aug 2008 18:22

Kartman wrote:
Rahul M wrote:it would be waste to use the DPSA jags for the mud mover role.
as kartman says , in absence of specialized CAS a/c in IAF it would be the floggers and fishbeds which would do the CAS job. they would be the possible candidates for nag integration.
Rahul M wrote:Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.

that's a typo, I meant the mig-27s.


Yeah... also, the MiG 21/23/27 might be a bit too fast flying for the tank-busting role, but that's a different story altogether ! I wish we had taken the Ajeet further into an IJT/AJT/CAS plane :((

with advances in targeting instruments, even more than low speed, armour is what is needed the most. in afghanistan, many frogfoots survived incidences of stingers up their musharrafs and lived to fight another day !

btw, IMO, the swing wing mig-27s would be better in this regard than the delta-winged mig-21.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Lalmohan » 08 Aug 2008 19:01

rakall wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:would it make sense to build a more modular NAMICA platform which can carry either Nag or Akash. need not be field configurable, but would be nice if one could take off a Nag top module and fix an Akash one depending on the mission parameters. using the T72 platform might also allow a 12 Nag carry?


Weight & Cost -- consider both..

Is it worth spending on a T72 chassis for the NAMICA role? Isntt BMP a more economical option.


maybe, maybe not.

look at the lifetime of both systems in their entirety and consider the benefits of modularisation for the entire period

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 08 Aug 2008 19:08

t-72 may not have enough internal space, being a tank.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 08 Aug 2008 19:28

IIRC there were some reports on BRF itself that 14kg, portable Nag was under development/consideration by DRDO.

Also rather than manportable, first option should be to mount the Nag onto light trucks for more verstile / cheaper role

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 08 Aug 2008 21:51

No need to worry about the soft-launch, since it wouldn't be meant for built-up areas anyway


It is not only the backblast that is main cause of concern (main problem in recoilless weapons) for man portable NAG but the booster and sustainer exhaust which will fry the gunner if hot launched. For man portable NAG soft launch is a necessaity.

Cheers....

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby srai » 09 Aug 2008 05:17

Rahul M wrote:it would be waste to use the DPSA jags for the mud mover role.
as kartman says , in absence of specialized CAS a/c in IAF it would be the floggers and fishbeds which would do the CAS job. they would be the possible candidates for nag integration.
Rahul M wrote:Also, you have to keep in mind that IAF doesn't have the specialized CAS anti-tank birds like the A-10 or the su-25, it has to make do with mig-21s and mig-23s for that role.

that's a typo, I meant the mig-27s.


RAF has integrated 32km range Brimstone (derivative of Hellfire) with the Tornado and plans are on for the Eurofighter.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 09 Aug 2008 23:33

Some sort of inexpensive, powered, precision standoff weapon is desirable. What is the target envelope for such NAG based weapon? What is its payload and what type of targets can it take out? Can that tandem warhead take out a bunker? With micro-minature sensors/nanotehcnology based sensros can a new steerable payload section be developed to existing aircraft delivered rockets?

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby pkudva » 10 Aug 2008 11:32

what is the status of India buying Spike ATGM's from israel, has any one have info on this???


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 12 Aug 2008 21:17

Austin and Sivab, There is a lot of info in the Frontline articles. Can I ask either or both of you to summarize the info on ppt charts so it can be uploaded into slideshare or some such service. I will ask Arun to comment on the future plans part. You might also consider making it a SRR article!

Thanks, ramana

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 13 Aug 2008 00:38



Ramana: Sure. Like to highlight some aspects.

Am glad M. Natarajan gives an insight to huge effort and expense that goes to Strategic weapons in DRDO. One will not be surprised to know that the same is true of DAE/BARC and Services. That is where there should be no quarters left that undermines "Credible deterrence". I must say that DRDO has acquitted well in this respect.
The DRDO is celebrating its golden jubilee this year. What is its road map, say, for the next 25 years?

The DRDO is one arm of the Ministry of Defence devoted to science and technology development. We get a small portion of the defence budget, which is at present around 6.13 per cent. What is not known to many is that 40 per cent of the DRDO’s budget goes towards the development of strategic systems, essential for the country to maintain the requisite balance in defence preparedness. Close to a third of our budget goes towards salaries, infrastructure and training. So what most people know about the DRDO is based either on an appreciation or depreciation of one-third of our budget, spent on the development of the tactical systems for our armed forces.


Also no matter the jet engine mess LCA is central technology and weapons system for India. It IS the platform that will take India to UCAV. Clearly see that 5th Gen fighter and MCA will be compatible and symbiotic platforms.
So, if one looks at just this spectrum of vehicles, five in number, I see a good potential to build all together, about 1,000 aircraft, over a period of time. The LCA could be 400 in number for the IAF, 100 for the Navy; the trainer could be 150; the medium combat aircraft 250; and 100-150 for the UACVs.

Since the design is ours, with a largely open architecture system, we have the comfort of adding values in avionics, radar systems, control and guidance systems as we go along, besides making improvements in the materials for construction, particularly in composites and the manufacturing processes thereof.


What do you have to say to the criticism of time and cost overruns in several projects?

Let me be frank. If you look at most of our developmental programmes, I agree that we have taken two or three-fold more time than envisaged. But during the same period, there has been a continual upgrading of technology. The difficulty was that because of the delay, there was a moving goalpost. But while trying to reach the moving goalpost, we tried to upgrade the technology.

The problem was that for these first-off systems, the technology readiness level was inadequate and certain technologies had to be concurrently developed. This is true of any country that ventures to build systems for the first time.

Most people take note of a numerically quoted figure of the project value and the start date, a closing figure and a closing date, and try to decode a multiplication factor thereof, and say that the project cost had gone up by so many times. This is a simplistic way of passing judgement that does not speak the truth.


This one is a gem:
We have reasons to believe that our amortisations are pitifully low compared to many countries in the development arena. For example, if you take the INSAS [Indian National Small Arms System] rifle developed by the DRDO, about a million rifles have been produced until now. We spent less than Rs.20 crore to perfect it.

Rs.20 crore in modifying it?
No. It was the project cost. That is all. But we gave a production worth more than Rs.2,500 crore. What was amortisation [in this]? Just 1 per cent. Even if you take Arjun – I am deliberately quoting two extreme-end projects – we spent less than Rs.400 crore on its development. In a country that ends up building just 300 of these tanks – not a big number – you are talking of a production turnover close to Rs.5,000 crore. For a product [Arjun] of such complexity, its amortisation was ridiculously low.

Likewise, take the LCA, its project cost today is close to Rs.6,000 crore. Even if you spend another Rs.1,000 crore for adding some developmental entities, it will be Rs.7,000 crore. If you build 400 aircraft, – an aircraft today costs Rs.150 crore – it equals Rs.60,000 crore. The amortisation is just about 10 per cent. Worldwide, it is more than 25-30 per cent. Besides, the unit cost of any indigenously developed product is invariably favourable compared with the cost of any individual, imported equipment.

I want to assure you that while the DRDO will take its share of blame – it is not the only entity to be blamed – there are others in the decision-making process. Yet, I would not wish to pass on the blame to them. I take the blame for the delay but we are giving products at a reasonable cost and they can be sourced at economical prices.


The biggest deluge of future weapons products will IMHO come from India producing RLG in mass qty. That one component made cheap will allow slew of smart weapons like long range gliding bomb (work is in progress), bunker bursting guided sub-munition (air/missile delivered, or ground launched Nag derivative), guided rockets (future to Pinaka), Hand launched small-airplane that work like Harpy (Death dancing overhead).
The DRDO has come of age in missile development. How do you assess the success of the underwater missile Sagarika, the interceptor missile, Agni-II, Agni-I and Agni-III, Prithvi, Akash, Nag and BrahMos?

To the outside world, they may look like sudden successes. But there are no instant successes in a scientific activity. It is sustained effort and commitment in different disciplines that go into the integration of a missile, which has culminated in the success of a number of missile systems.

Elemental Technologies
Many elemental technologies that go into missiles, such as propulsion systems, airframe design, navigation, command and control systems, guidance systems, warheads and re-entry where applicable – all have reached a maturity for a given design and for the level of technology that we have planned so far. They have been integrated into successful systems. It is like a perfect meal…. It is difficult to describe whether these missions are entirely scientific or partly art.

The challenge now will be to take forward the technological gains by making improvements in each elemental technology, which will cumulatively give us advantages in terms of longer-range, lesser-weight, more-efficient propulsion, compact and reliable margins and so on. I am sure that all this will happen in the coming decade with newer seekers, fibre optics, ring-laser gyros, light-weight, high-strength materials, and polymeric materials in propulsion systems.


The RF Tx-Rx module based radar development is another big thing for Indian defense. Not only for AESA/AEW&C but for missile defense (ballistic and cruise), and network centric aerial platforms.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Vick » 13 Aug 2008 00:44

Arun_S wrote:The biggest deluge of future weapons products will IMHO come from India producing RLG in mass qty. That one component made cheap will allow slew of smart weapons like long range gliding bomb (work is in progress), bunker bursting guided sub-munition (air/missile delivered, or ground launched Nag derivative), guided rockets (future to Pinaka), Hand launched small-airplane that work like Harpy (Death dancing overhead).

See this link, if you haven't already. Something that caught my eye:

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartik » 13 Aug 2008 00:46

There's an article in the latest edition of Aviation Week and Space Tech. (4th August, 2008) It has a small picture of the Astra being test-fired from a ground based static launcher rig. Visually looks similar to the images of the Astra on BR's page, but the fins now appear closer to the center than the images on BR suggest. Seeker head is blunt though and doesn't seem as sharp as the one on BR's pages. It seems similar to the Mica, but this flies in the face of what was reported earlier that the seeker was indigenous.

I'm sorry but I can't scan the image though.

Long-Range Target

India is about to kick-off flight trials of its first, indigenously developed BVR air-to-air missile, called Astra. The 160kg weapon features a single-boost motor and radar seeker. The weapon is intended to be similarly sized to the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, although Astra is a bit heavier; its range is to be around 70 km.

The DRDO plans to start test shots at the Balasore Integrated Test range this month. Initial flight tests will be conducted on the Su-30MKI, with the Mirage-2000 and the Indian developed Light Combat Aircraft to follow.

Guided test firings are not expected until 2010, and service entry is still five years away.

"We normally carry three missiles and have a minimum of two launches. Depending on how good the development flight is, we keep total flexibility to do field changes at site on the third launch", says Prahlada, DRDO's chief controller of R&D.

Astra is'nt free of foreign components, though. An Indian official acknowledges the critical radar seeker comes from France. That's likely to be the seeker for the RF-guided Mica. Sticking with that seeker is not a locked option though. "More than one option open", Prahlada says, nothing that "this is the first time we are developing a [beyond-visual-range missile] and we will need to be cautious".

But Indian developers know they face many hurdles, including keeping the weight down and ensuring proper data transfer between the launching aircraft and the weapon.

Although India has had offers for off-the-shelf, BVR missiles from Russia, France, Israel and the US, Prahlada says that the country has decided to go it alone, reasoning thta bought weapons are not top-of-the-line. "When you start development, offers come, but they're never for the best," the official argues. "It is only when we refine our own product that we get offers for the best," he says, noting that by then, there's no interest in buying.

Prahlada agrees, citing the Akash air-defence missiles example: "Now that its ready, we have been offered the Patriot (PAC-3). Akash is the poor man's Patriot. At one-third the cost, we are meeting India's air-defence requirements."

There is no direct linkage between the Astra development and India's plan to field 126 or more Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. A decision on whether to put the new missile on that fighter will be left to the Air Force and Defence Ministry, Prahlada says.

DRDO is also moving ahead on a surface-to-surface 4 km range anti-tank tandem-warhead missile called Nag.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 13 Aug 2008 01:41

Yes ground launch photo shows the mid fins located a little forward compared to the DRDO models and graphics in AeroIndia etc.

I notice the glee with which AW&ST reports on "Astra is'nt free of foreign components," as if they bothered to say the same for any of the european missiles that are worst in NOT having missile parts made by a single european nation. Easy Piskology for Europeans to conveniently hide under the Islamic Burka/vail of "We are one ummah of EU Onlee" when time suites, else each EU nation is on its own when selling or voting in UN. Never heard of limiting one EU vote at UN, and only one EU membership in UN Security Council. The 600 lb US gorilla is also now seeking help from from foreign suppliers, forgetting the high pride of "Nor Invented Here".
Astra is'nt free of foreign components, though. An Indian official acknowledges the critical radar seeker comes from France.


What stops India from using foreign substitutes for initial trials (while awaiting indigenous ones to be fully baked in SQA process), while using the fully baked indigenous one for later trials and certainly for the first production article? The gora will never mention foreign people that are helping them develop/R&D their weapons. :rotfl:

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby rrao » 13 Aug 2008 18:54

vick! its good to hear that Mr.satish reddy has become sc'G' and technology director at a very young age. He was with Agni under Mr. Avinash Chander, when we were with prithvi INS development and Engineering team. Great going!

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 13 Aug 2008 19:42

rrao sahib: First my humble salam to you, for having directly contributed to Indian defense by building key parts of the deterrence. And thanks for your participation on BRF. Quick questions:
1) Did Shri G Satheesh Reddy design the RLG or did he design the RLG based INS-GPS system?
2) What is the ballpark cost of Indian RLG? I am thinking of it use in small & cheap / disposable vehicles?
3) In this article what is full form of "HPINS" (for Agni)?
4) Do they manufactured their own MEMS for the IMU for the MEMS-based INS+GPS+ GLONASS system? Both accelerometer & rate gyro?


Vick wrote:
Arun_S wrote:The biggest deluge of future weapons products will IMHO come from India producing RLG in mass qty. That one component made cheap will allow slew of smart weapons like long range gliding bomb (work is in progress), bunker bursting guided sub-munition (air/missile delivered, or ground launched Nag derivative), guided rockets (future to Pinaka), Hand launched small-airplane that work like Harpy (Death dancing overhead).

See this link, if you haven't already. Something that caught my eye:

Image

Thanks for that excerpt.
The key is what is the cost of indigeneous RLG. That limits its application in small vehicles/weapons.

The first most effective use of cheap RLG will be in standoff range gliding bombs. The commercial accelerometers with RLG will give very good delivery accuracy. Launched by an aircraft at 30,000 ft that bomb will glide ~40 Km to the target and deliver within few meters of accuracy with INS only (I.e. without depending on GPS signal).

Eventually a micro version of Harpy circling & dancing 'Tandav' overhead on enemy HQ, 10 miles across LoC will make the Momin Jihadi CO of pure Islamic fauj to brown his pants before he steps out of this bunker for the loo.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Arun_S » 13 Aug 2008 20:55

India tests multi-barrel rocket launcher ‘Pinaka’
India tests multi-barrel rocket launcher ‘Pinaka’Balasore (Orissa): India successfully tested Wednesday an advanced version of the indigenously built multi-barrel rocket launcher 'Pinaka' from a defence base in Orissa, officials said.

The multi-barrel rocket launching system (MBRLS) was tested from the Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) in Chandipur-on-sea in Balasore district, some 230 km from state capital Bhubaneswar.

“It was a product launch,” S.P. Dash, director of the Chandipur defence base, told IANS over telephone. PXE is part of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Capable of firing 12 rockets in a single salvo with 1.2 tonnes of high explosives within 40 seconds, the Pinaka system has already been tested on the field during the Kargil war.

“The developed version is a sophisticated shoot-and-scoot high mobility system. The test today (Wednesday) was aimed at improving the system and sub-system,” defence officials said.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 13 Aug 2008 21:20

HPINS= High Precision INS.

I think.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Surya » 13 Aug 2008 21:32

Ramana, Austin, sivab

In addition it would be nice if we someone had time to tally the DRDO weapons in service (actual use), numbers in a chart.

Time and Time again I run into a Army or Air Force chap who parrots the line" what has DRDO done. It has not been able to deliver even a pin"

It would nice to throw this chart on their face.


Surya

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 13 Aug 2008 21:38

Surya, have a look, it's quite comprehensive, a BRFite looks after it ! :wink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO
anyway, has some # info right on the page and you can follow most items to their
specific page.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Kartik » 14 Aug 2008 07:44

Rahul M wrote:with advances in targeting instruments, even more than low speed, armour is what is needed the most. in afghanistan, many frogfoots survived incidences of stingers up their musharrafs and lived to fight another day !

btw, IMO, the swing wing mig-27s would be better in this regard than the delta-winged mig-21.


armour may save the aircraft against small arms fire and maybe even ack-ack, but against SAMs, its useless. Russia has already confirmed losing 3 Su-25 Frogfoots against Georgia..the lack of good situational awareness and adequate countermeasures showing up the the great danger of CAS against targets that are well guarded with SAMs and MANPADs.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 14 Aug 2008 07:49

kartik, do remember which SAMs we are talking about in georgia !
s-300, even a Tu-22MR(*) was shot down by it. that is one of the very best in business, name me one a/c that pilots would be comfortable flying in a s-300 infested AD environment.
frogfoots (or frogfeet as someone calls them at keypubs) weren't that susceptible to MANPADS, do read the bolded part of my comments above. If you want I'll try and hunt out the actual casualty figures from afghanistan.
regards.

(*)that's about the best ECMs russia has.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Austin » 14 Aug 2008 08:25

From what I understand it is the BUK-M1 ( SA-11 Gadfly ) that brought the Tu-22MR .

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Vick » 14 Aug 2008 08:35

Austin wrote:From what I understand it is the BUK-M1 ( SA-11 Gadfly ) that brought the Tu-22MR .

From where? Ukraine or old FSU left over stock?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17023
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Rahul M » 14 Aug 2008 08:46

there have been conflicting reports AFAIK. has buk been confirmed by russian def minintry ?

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby neerajb » 14 Aug 2008 16:38

Equipped with Imaging Infrared Seeker and lock-on-after-launch capability, and carrying a real warhead, it was fired from Namica, a dedicated missile carrier.


http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/06/stories/2008080651801400.htm

Just noticed this. Is it DDM or does Nag really has some sort of datalink?

Cheers...

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby andy B » 14 Aug 2008 17:15

Austin wrote:From what I understand it is the BUK-M1 ( SA-11 Gadfly ) that brought the Tu-22MR .


FYI

Georgia Strikes Back With Air Defenses | AVIATION WEEK

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby K Mehta » 14 Aug 2008 17:53

neerajbhandari wrote:
Equipped with Imaging Infrared Seeker and lock-on-after-launch capability, and carrying a real warhead, it was fired from Namica, a dedicated missile carrier.


http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/06/stories/2008080651801400.htm

Just noticed this. Is it DDM or does Nag really has some sort of datalink?

Cheers...

From Dr. Saraswat's lecture, I remember him saying it has a datalink. It has both LOAL and LOBL ability.

Vick wrote:See this link, if you haven't already. Something that caught my eye:

Image

That was what he talked about too, MEMS based INS. I thought it was a future item under research. Looks like its a part of the present systems.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby K Mehta » 14 Aug 2008 18:07

Arun_S wrote:Yes ground launch photo shows the mid fins located a little forward compared to the DRDO models and graphics in AeroIndia etc.

I notice the glee with which AW&ST reports on "Astra is'nt free of foreign components," as if they bothered to say the same for any of the european missiles that are worst in NOT having missile parts made by a single european nation. Easy Piskology for Europeans to conveniently hide under the Islamic Burka/vail of "We are one ummah of EU Onlee" when time suites, else each EU nation is on its own when selling or voting in UN. Never heard of limiting one EU vote at UN, and only one EU membership in UN Security Council. The 600 lb US gorilla is also now seeking help from from foreign suppliers, forgetting the high pride of "Nor Invented Here".
Astra is'nt free of foreign components, though. An Indian official acknowledges the critical radar seeker comes from France.


What stops India from using foreign substitutes for initial trials (while awaiting indigenous ones to be fully baked in SQA process), while using the fully baked indigenous one for later trials and certainly for the first production article? The gora will never mention foreign people that are helping them develop/R&D their weapons. :rotfl:

Arun bhai,
AWST is the worst when it comes to reporting about India. What damage isnt done by that is done by Siva Govindasamy of flight international. I think this guy of Indian origin staying in Singapore does a lot more damage to Indian image than anybody else. The only forin printed source which I trust (with a bit of apprehension) is Jane's. So you can guess how bad it can be. BR and now WIKI has become a good source on Indian defence news. Defence Industry Daily is better than the first two but is limited in coverage.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3086
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby tsarkar » 14 Aug 2008 18:29

LOAL doesnt require datalink in some cases.

NAMICA Target Acquisition System with Low light CCD camera and thermal imager acquires the target and hands off the target designation to the missile IIR seeker in LOBL.

In LOAL, the missile is fired and the missile IIR seeker captures the tank using its inbuilt logic as a true fire and forget.

Not sure whether a short range missile like Nag has a datalink. It is touted as fire and forget. The engagement cycle is very brief for datalink updates - missile flight time is 16 seconds to 4 km.

However, in missiles with datalink, in LOAL, the missile is fired and target designates are transferred from sensor platform to missile via datalink.

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Mihir.D » 14 Aug 2008 18:42

A stupid question...

Can the IIR seeker on the NAG be modified suitably to use on a IIR AAM or an IIR SAM ?

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby Misraji » 14 Aug 2008 19:47

A slightly off-topic post:

Many sites list that Sa-5 Gammon (S200) was in service with India. I have never heard about this.

Does anybody have more information on this??

Regards,
Ashish.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion - 27 March 2008

Postby ramana » 14 Aug 2008 19:48

K Mehta, and Jane's correspondent in India is Rahul Bedi who is a self claimed leftist defence reporter. :eek:

The moral of the story is to seek from all sources and apply your own filters.
A simple procedure is:
1) read the news without opinion initially.
2) see what does it confirm that you know already.
3) filter out all the standard phrases.
4) what new info does the story convey?
5) can you corroborate the info in item 4?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests