Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2016 14:29

the kh31 also uses a kerosene ramjet.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 18 Feb 2016 17:50

JTull wrote:
I just wonder if a true AWACS killer can be built. Perhaps a long-legged AAM but not one with anti-radiation seeker. On one hand we praise AESA radars on fighters for their frequency agility and difficulty to counter, and on other hand we believe an anti-radiation missile will be able to lock on to the AWACS radar.

Added later:
These must be for the traditional AWACS using rotating PESA based radomes and with everyone moving on to AESA radars, these might become obsolete. It may be worth studying Harpy/Harop drones to know how they tackle land based AESA radars.

This problem is true for basic ARM as well. Following patent is from 2004, thus this dual/multi mode seeker must be in 4th gen by now.

Coupled with midcourse guidance via data link these ARM will have very high Pk. Basically they don't have to be passive only. If these ARM have IIR for terminal phase then no fat AWAC can outrun them.

http://www.google.com/patents/US6806823

Thus it is desirable to have a dual or multi-mode seeker weapon that has both an active mode, such as millimeter wave (MMW) or Imaging Infrared (IIR), and a passive mode radio-frequency (RF) homing capability. Such a multi-mode seeker has two main advantages. The first is that if no emitting air defense radar is encountered, the weapon can still be used in the active mode since the active mode requires no emission from the target. The MMW radar on the missile emits signals that are reflected from the target and received back at the missile by MMW antenna 201. The second is that the active mode can also be used for the terminal portion of the missile's flight, after the missile has flown the initial and mid-course portions using the passive mode, to decrease any miss distance from the target radar.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2016 18:26

JTull wrote: I just wonder if a true AWACS killer can be built. Perhaps a long-legged AAM but not one with anti-radiation seeker. On one hand we praise AESA radars on fighters for their frequency agility and difficulty to counter, and on other hand we believe an anti-radiation missile will be able to lock on to the AWACS radar.

Added later:
These must be for the traditional AWACS using rotating PESA based radomes and with everyone moving on to AESA radars, these might become obsolete. It may be worth studying Harpy/Harop drones to know how they tackle land based AESA radars.

A PESA need not rotate.. question is whether the seeker is sensitive to detect spread spectrum, frequency hoppers like the futuristic AESAs which the world talks off (and I doubt whether even one of those is in service..)...it then has to get bearing from that signal, put that bearing into its nav system and scoot off changing its course if the signal gets weaker/stronger... range fix may require reliance back on launching platform (and datalink).

Harpy/Harop drones...i doubt they are in particular for AESA/PESA etc.. they are just optimized for a radar band.. if you emit in that band and the signal is strong enough, they come for you...if you switch off, they loiter, you switch on, again they will come ..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2016 18:28

SSridhar wrote:{The RCI-developed MMW seeker}[/b]. The missile will be inducted in about two years after conducting a number of developmental trials.

[/quote]

A MMW seeker would be used for air to air targets for the Astra and for moving targets like the Nag (http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 707196.ece).. this will require a passive broadband (hopefully) seeker, unless they use a mmw seeker as a backup for a target which emits but then shuts off.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Feb 2016 18:51

In order to target an AWACS you need to surprise it. Anything that requires a datalink to the launch (or 3rd) platform which is emitting would defeat the surprise element. A dual-mode seeker that could potentially emit should do so at the last possible minute. An optimised high ballistic path (top attack) could be one way to surprise. The question there being whether the missile has the legs to quickly reach the general area fed before launch and have a seeker that can quickly identify the target (which may be long gone). This might require two stage thrust with very high speed terminal stage. Several technological challenges to overcome here!

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 18 Feb 2016 19:52

AWACs will always operate in a region where they have complete air dominance. Given their detection rage they don't have to take any risk venturing into danger or jump them. If they are threatened they will move into more relatively safe area.

Please read about HARM 88E and FT-2000

P.S. a more unconventional way is to strike them when they are still on the ground. Our neighbors knows how it goes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2016 20:01

JTull wrote:In order to target an AWACS you need to surprise it. Anything that requires a datalink to the launch (or 3rd) platform which is emitting would defeat the surprise element. A dual-mode seeker that could potentially emit should do so at the last possible minute. An optimised high ballistic path (top attack) could be one way to surprise. The question there being whether the missile has the legs to quickly reach the general area fed before launch and have a seeker that can quickly identify the target (which may be long gone). This might require two stage thrust with very high speed terminal stage. Several technological challenges to overcome here!

Depends on the speed and range. If you have a long range, high speed missile, even if the AWACS detects you, what can it do to escape unless it carries ECM kit?

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Feb 2016 04:00

^^^

IMO, you don't have to necessarily kill an AWACS in the air. If an AWACS could be made to perform evasive maneuvers and run further into safety (especially force it down to lower altitudes), it would achieve temporary superiority for air campaign to proceed with less hindrance. Of course, shooting it down would be a big bonus though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Feb 2016 06:50

a true awacs killer would either be a hypersonic LR a2a missile - to give the plane no time to run away and very hard for a2a missiles of escorts to shoot it, OR a VLO solid fuel a2a missile fired from a great height and speed like Foxhound releasing it....a kind of AA9 stealthski(none have it).

for a while I have ranting about converting the Shourya which has the speed and range into a ground based anti awacs / area denial role. it will take OTH radar of the ABM sized to monitor activity - this is anyway a must if we are serious about BMD

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Feb 2016 09:04

I think an anti radiation kh31 @200 km would do really nicely...esp.with hoj capability and multiple seekers and even a sarh version where the bars can guide it all the way, sort of semi passive

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Feb 2016 11:42

the exported version of kh31 only has 100km range.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Feb 2016 12:21

Singha wrote:the exported version of kh31 only has 100km range.

The newest variant of Kh-31PD an export model has a range of 180-250 km depending on flight profile its got wide band passive seeker

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/5 ... 887d132920

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 28 Feb 2016 16:12

http://www.dailypioneer.com/todays-news ... fence.html

India and Israel are expected to ink a significant Defence deal worth over Rs50,000 crore for Seeker technology ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Tel Aviv later this year. The cutting-edge technology will help India take a giant leap forward in manufacturing smart weapons within the country and rapidly modernise missile and rocket system used by the IAF, Army and Navy.

The talks for wrapping up the deal are in advanced stage between the two countries and Israel has agreed to transfer the expertise to develop and manufacture Seeker technology. It will enable the Defence forces to identify, acquire and then destroy an enemy missile or aircraft at long range or beyond visual range.

In simple terms, it means a warship can fire a missile at a hostile target at more than 200 km distance without visually sighting it as compared to the present 50 to 60 km. Seeker technology will also revolutionise the armoured corps as tanks will hit a target at a greater distance and same will be the case for fighter jets. In fact, this technology will cover the entire gamut of missiles ranging from Akash to Long Range Surface to Air Missiles (LRSAM) used by the three Services.

Elaborating upon the importance of this proposed deal, officials said here on Saturday the countries including the US and some European countries are reluctant to transfer Seeker technology to India resulting in the country’s missile system lagging behind by at least two generations.

Against this backdrop, Israel has given a clear signal that it will provide the critical ‘know why’ instead of ‘know how’. Starved of the state-of-the-art technology, the Indian industry depends on know how or technology transfer but has not been able to master entire process of manufacturing a smart weapon from scratch. In turn, it hampers the faster modernisation of the armed forces as they are using weapons which are at least 15 to 20 years behind in terms of technological advancement as compared to the US, China and NATO countries.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be the lead agency in developing this technology. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had given an “in-principle” approval for setting up of an Rs6,000-crore facility by the DRDO for air missile defence systems last year.

Besides the Seeker technology deal, the two countries are likely to ink a Rs10,000-crore deal for joint development of a medium-range surface-to-air missile system for the Indian Army.

The other pacts include procurement of 164 laser-designation pods or ‘Litening-4’ for IAF fighters like SU-30s and Jaguars as well as 250 advanced ‘Spice’ precision stand-off bombs capable of destroying fortified enemy underground command centres. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) chaired by the Prime Minister may clear it next month, sources said.

Talks are also underway to finalise a Rs3,200-crore contract for 321 ‘Spike’ anti tank guided (ATGM) systems and 8,356 missiles. The Army is in urgent need for third-generation ATGMs, with a strike range of over 2.5-km and fire-and-forget capabilities, to equip all its 382 infantry battalions and 44 mechanised infantry units.

The NDA Government in 2014 had selected the Israeli Spike ATGM over the US Javelin missile system, but the actual contract could not be inked due to some issues. The project involves an initial off-the-shelf induction, followed by large-scale indigenous manufacture by Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL).

The proposed medium range surface to air missile (MRSAM) project between DRDO and Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), too, is a big ticket item, officials said. The initial order is for one MRSAM regiment, with 16 firing units along with their multifunction surveillance and weapon control systems. BDL will manufacture these missiles. DRDO and IAI are already engaged in a project worth over Rs13,000 crore for Navy and IAF for developing similar missiles.

Incidentally, the Israel Defence industry is closely involved with the DRDO in more than 30 projects, including development of radars, electronic warfare systems and satellite based command and control systems for the three Services.

Moreover, Israeli made Greenpine radars are successfully integrated into the Agni missiles systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel is now the third largest weapon supplier after the US and Russia to India since diplomatic ties between the two nations were established in 1990

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 01 Mar 2016 15:56

CCS clears acquisition of two more AWACS
...
The CCS chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi also approved a proposal for induction of the fourth regiment of supersonic cruise missile Brahmos and two more of Pinaka rocket launchers in the army.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Mar 2016 16:54

AWACs has definitely room to carry many towed decoys and jammers.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Mar 2016 17:36

[Self Deleted- Duplicate]

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Mar 2016 17:37

DDM strikes

wo more of Pinaka rocket launchers in the army.

CCS has to clear launcher by launcher and not regiment by regiment

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 Mar 2016 17:57

Aditya_V wrote:DDM strikes
wo more of Pinaka rocket launchers in the army.

CCS has to clear launcher by launcher and not regiment by regiment

It is pretty clear! 4th regiment of Brahmos and 2 more (regiments) of Pinaka.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 01 Mar 2016 19:37

Another IL-78 based AWAC? With Ukraine out, hows that gonna work out for us.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2016 19:52

Ilyushin is russian (so is tupolev). Antonov is ukrainian. PS90 engine is russian.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 01 Mar 2016 20:23

What the heck happened to the Canister launch test of Agni V? It was supposed to be done by Feb end.
Is the chappan inchi sarkar waiting for nod from Uncle Sam?

Modi has drastically reduced the Budget spending as percentage of GDP to an all time low. The budget allocations this year on real time basis have actually reduced compared to last year if we account for inflation.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 01 Mar 2016 20:54

^^^^
The capital expenditure on big ticket deals have reduced ..like c-17 , p-8s

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Mar 2016 21:25

Vipul, Shaun - dont go by "budgeted" that is the biggest scam ever.

Go by spent. We have always had an issue with spending even a reasonable amount of the fake budgeted amount.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 01 Mar 2016 21:38

@KaranM

The slowdown in Agni series and K-series testing is indeed disturbing. Agni-V not tested since last Jan when there were reports of 3 tests planned in a year. K-4 not tested since Mar. 2014. At a time when internal enemies of the nation are active, we need strong deterrence to avoid facing a PRC/Pak combo conventionally. Deployed Agni-V/K-4 is critical for this. But it seems that the Modi govt. is more interested in appeasing the west. This is precisely what I find extremely dissapointing with the Modi govt, to put it mildly.

Good governance, etc is all fine. But without strong security, all is lost. Hope Modi does'nt face what Chacha Nehru faced in 1962 or face a situation where India has to outsource security to the West at the cost of loosing sovereignty like South Korea. Needless to say, the opposition appears to be even worse. A strongly nationalistic opposition would have hauled the Modi sarkar over the coals for this missile testing restraint.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 01 Mar 2016 22:14

The K4 testing has been done multiple times but never declared except for one video.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2016 22:45

prasannasimha wrote:The K4 testing has been done multiple times but never declared except for one video.

I think these are launches from the pontoon and not flight tests per se. Those require NOTAM etc.

Pontoon launches are to proof the UWL system.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 01 Mar 2016 23:39

@ramana: Exactly. Any flight test requires a NOTAM/NAVAREA warning. The tests that can be done discreetly are ejection tests from an underwater pontoon or even ejection tests from INS Arihant. These could have been done several times for K-15 as well as K-4. Operationalization however, requires at least 3 consecutive (successful) flight tests from the pontoon /INS Arihant. This is what is held up along with further canisterized launches of the Agni-V. Consequent delays in operationalizing these systems would seriously affect national security. Deployed A-V/K-4 are what is required to keep China away from any direct conventional conflict (the conventional balance is becoming as adverse for us as 1962).

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 01 Mar 2016 23:52

It will be difficult to dig up NOTAMs for publically declared tests of various Agni,Prithvi series, let alone secret tests.
DRDO can be eerily quiet about tests and stuff when it wants to.

as prasannasimha ji rightly pointed out-the K4 testing. It was declared long after the test was done and a grainy kind of video clip.Not the usual launch naarmal vids that we are used to ..

Lack of info in this case doesn't necessarily mean lack of action.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2016 00:19

nirav wrote:It will be difficult to dig up NOTAMs for publically declared tests of various Agni,Prithvi series, let alone secret tests.
DRDO can be eerily quiet about tests and stuff when it wants to.

as prasannasimha ji rightly pointed out-the K4 testing. It was declared long after the test was done and a grainy kind of video clip.Not the usual launch naarmal vids that we are used to ..

Lack of info in this case doesn't necessarily mean lack of action.

This is the NPA mullah line of accusing DRDO of secrecy in missile programs.

K4 ballistic test was openly launched.

The ejection tests don't require such openness.
At least on BRF one shouldn't plug the NPA propaganda.
Accuse them of incompetence, etc. etc. but not this subterfuge testing of missiles.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 02 Mar 2016 00:32

^

Sorry, was not aware of NPA mullahs stance.

But iirc, the K4 test video wasnt officially released. It was released as a clip in DRDOs year gone by video..

Duration is only 13 seconds. The testing with media presence and all was of the K15

But my point on NOTAMs is valid. Govt *will* have to issue requisite NOTAMs even for secret testing as long as its conducted in bay of bengal. The only thing is, if it so chooses, it can not announce it in the media. persons who check NOTAMs on a daily basis for anomalies would be intelligence agencies.

There is no way we can find out and co relate NOTAMs and their database with previous launches or future launches.

I also dont see any harm in DRDO doing secret stuff and testing it secretly. RTI non applicable onlee.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 02 Mar 2016 01:00

NOTAMS have to be issued in any case. Even China and Russia do it for inland flight testing. NAVAREA has to be issued as well if it is done over the Bay of Bengal. Flight tests of long range missiles can never be concealed. Even the K-4 test was appeared in the news the day it happened: Niticentral among other outlets stated that a 2000 km+slbm was tested. It was much later that itwas announced to have been a K-4 test.

Here, even people like Bharat Karnad who would not miss a A-5/K-4 test confirm that such testing is stalled. May very well have a lot to do with the MEA type babus. Bharat Karnad's site has a plausible explanation for this phenomenon. But one expected NaMo to brush such babus' ideas aside and embark on weeding out those who may be compromised. For instance, the sale of F-16's to TSP in spite of our opposition is a very good opportunity to go full speed ahead on A-5/K-4 tests in spite of any reservation from any outside quarters. After all, if PRC comes knocking at our doors, the same west that advised us strategic restraint all along will make a sacrificial goat out of us or use the opportunity to make us a sovereignty-less country like SoKo at best or the Phillipines at worst.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Mar 2016 01:13

ramdas wrote:@KaranM

The slowdown in Agni series and K-series testing is indeed disturbing. Agni-V not tested since last Jan when there were reports of 3 tests planned in a year. K-4 not tested since Mar. 2014. At a time when internal enemies of the nation are active, we need strong deterrence to avoid facing a PRC/Pak combo conventionally. Deployed Agni-V/K-4 is critical for this. But it seems that the Modi govt. is more interested in appeasing the west. This is precisely what I find extremely dissapointing with the Modi govt, to put it mildly.

Good governance, etc is all fine. But without strong security, all is lost. Hope Modi does'nt face what Chacha Nehru faced in 1962 or face a situation where India has to outsource security to the West at the cost of loosing sovereignty like South Korea. Needless to say, the opposition appears to be even worse. A strongly nationalistic opposition would have hauled the Modi sarkar over the coals for this missile testing restraint.

To be honest, it is a point of concern. We can claim its all secret and we don't know but it doesn't explain the complete lack of public testing, with notifications, which adds to both user confidence and public deterrence.

If the Modi govt is indeed appeasing the west, then it is a significant mistake.

At any rate, it warrants watching all reports with a hawks eye. If the MOD report in April-May shows progress on missile systems and mentions tests, then we know they are still going on without publicity.

But that's possible for tactical systems and not strategic ones.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Mar 2016 01:16

ramdas wrote:Here, even people like Bharat Karnad who would not miss a A-5/K-4 test confirm that such testing is stalled. May very well have a lot to do with the MEA type babus. Bharat Karnad's site has a plausible explanation for this phenomenon. But one expected NaMo to brush such babus' ideas aside and embark on weeding out those who may be compromised..

Were you referring to this?
http://bharatkarnad.com/2015/10/12/agni ... odi-in-us/

He does say the delay is political.
http://bharatkarnad.com/2016/02/08/arih ... very-soon/

Bharat Sir,

Is the delay in Agni-V testing due to DRDO or due to political red lights ? Will the next Agni-V test be MIRVed ?
Reply
Bharat Karnad says:
February 13, 2016 at 9:42 am

Political. MIRVing test imminent, but also political.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 02 Mar 2016 01:24

@KaranM: Yes. He also says more about the babu class in general on some other threads of his this year. Unfortunate if true.

Things do point to a strategic mistake on this front by this GoI. God knows for what concrete gain. Hope the mistake is corrected. Two years is a lot of time to lose on this front.

John · Post by **John** » 02 Mar 2016 03:47

I am more concerned about delays with AAD and Nirbhay both of which seemed to be stuck in development hell. And i would not suprised if services start at looking at alternatives for them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Mar 2016 05:05

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/col ... s-1.891665

2 launches of Nirbhay planned this year..

John · Post by **John** » 02 Mar 2016 08:13

Thanks for link but why slow pace of testing this is no ballistic missile. For example with brahmos it was tested over 4-5 times a year and required over 12 successful tests before production run. At the least it looks like Nirbhay won't be ready for induction any time before 2020.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Mar 2016 17:56

Could be all up seeker + nav system trials.. typically DRDO to save money does fewer trials with more parameters.. agree, that we need to speed things up

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Mar 2016 18:10

ramdas wrote:NOTAMS have to be issued in any case. Even China and Russia do it for inland flight testing. NAVAREA has to be issued as well if it is done over the Bay of Bengal. Flight tests of long range missiles can never be concealed. Even the K-4 test was appeared in the news the day it happened: Niticentral among other outlets stated that a 2000 km+slbm was tested. It was much later that itwas announced to have been a K-4 test.

I didn't know about the NAVAREA - thank you. So searching on hydrobharat.nic.in, which seems to be the issuing authority, I chanced upon this and looks like there are scheduled launches of "experimental launch vehicle" and missile firing by naval ships on Mar 16 and PSLV between 10-12 Mar

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 02 Mar 2016 18:32

In the Daily Pioneer article posted above..

Moreover, Israeli made Greenpine radars are successfully integrated into the Agni missiles systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel is now the third largest weapon supplier after the US and Russia to India since diplomatic ties between the two nations were established in 1990

Guess they meant the greenpine integration with BMD interceptors?

(facepalm)