Indian Missile News And Discussion

[Guest]

WRT the Scramjet test ATV-D1

The big question is will this be scalable to a larger engine? I suppose that the next flight will see ignition.



On breifly searching the net I note that the US had the first ignition on a scramjet in 2002, and there are half a dozen countries trying to develop a scramjet powered craft.

[ravicv]

[quote name='Gagan' date='06 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1267917924' post='104915']

WRT the Scramjet test ATV-D1

The big question is will this be scalable to a larger engine? I suppose that the next flight will see ignition.



On breifly searching the net I note that the US had the first ignition on a scramjet in 2002, and there are half a dozen countries trying to develop a scramjet powered craft.

[/quote]



It may not directly in itself scale-up to a larger engine. However, at the very least it certainly will provide valuable data such as the reaction rate kinetics, etc. that will help in fine tuning existing simulations (for example in hypersonic aerothermodynamics) and experiments, which then will lead to a larger and practically usable scramjet.

[vasu_ray]

From the interview with VK Saraswat from this link,



http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/%E2...%80%99-866



here is an excerpt,



"Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?

A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year."



what are the reasons that ISRO requires 7 secs of test flight while DRDO fixes it at 20 secs and aren't these time values way smaller to be ramped up for practical flights if the materials can't withstand beyond?



if these materials are so exotic how are they comfortable with abandoning them in the ocean (citing economic reasons) after the test flights?

[laltaputu]

there are two hyper plane concept

1.AVATAR - ISRO (USED AS REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE)

2.HSDTV - DRDO what is this used for future bomber(?)

[Arun_S]

[quote name='vasu_ray' date='07 March 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1267939126' post='104924']

From the interview with VK Saraswat from this link,



[url="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/%E2%80%98us-still-denying-us-technology%E2%80%99-866"]http://www.deccanchr...gy%E2%80%99-866[/url]



here is an excerpt,



"Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?

A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year."



what are the reasons that ISRO requires 7 secs of test flight while DRDO fixes it at 20 secs and aren't these time values way smaller to be ramped up for practical flights if the materials can't withstand beyond?



if these materials are so exotic how are they comfortable with abandoning them in the ocean (citing economic reasons) after the test flights?

[/quote]

ISRO's 7 second is for passive test and that is first step to engine realization, and penultimate for first hot test (with fuel) which is expected to be of longer duration to account for operating phase.



Also ISRO's approach with cryogenic fuel allows option to cool critical part using the cryo fuel (regenerative cooling).



India and Japan were the leaders (theoretical and experimental work) in scamjet propulsion for many decades, but US was first to test fly their experimental scram engine. Will be a mistake to discount India.



------------------- Added later --------



As for DRDO, one can easily find on web pics of full scale mockup of HSTV. So it is not just 20 second on lab test bench.

[Guest]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='07 March 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1267948044' post='104930']

ISRO's 7 second is for passive test and that is first step to engine realization, and penultimate for first hot test (with fuel) which is expected to be of longer duration to account for operating phase.



Also ISRO's approach with cryogenic fuel allows option to cool critical part using the cryo fuel (regenerative cooling). [/quote]



India and Japan were the leaders (theoretical and experimental work) in scamjet propulsion for many decades,





Arunji the above underlined matter is far from fact. In fact it was US,UK, n Australia. USA started work on scramjet during early sixties (Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory) and Australia in 1981.

In the 1950s and 1960s a variety of experimental scramjets engines were built and ground tested in US and the UK. In 1981 tests were made in Australia under the guidance of Professor Ray Stalker in the T3 ground test facility at ANU

While India did their first ground test in the year 2005 at VSCC.

THE INDIAN Space Research Organisation (ISRO) added another feather to its cap when it successfully tested the use of oxygen moving at a speed of Mach 6 — six times the speed of sound — in laboratory conditions to produce a stable supersonic combustion lasting for a few seconds.



Put in a nutshell, the organisation has tested the scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) technology that uses air moving at supersonic speed (Mach 6) for ignition. The speed of sound is 750 km per second and is called Mach 1. Anything beyond Mach 1 is considered supersonic. Ramjets, on the other hand, use air at subsonic speed (below Mach 1) for ignition.



Joining the elite club



With this, India has joined the elite club comprising a handful of nations that are working on mastering the technology. The U.S., Japan, China, Russia, Australia, and some countries in Europe, according to an ISRO press release, are working on scramjet technology.

India n Japan were never leaders in scram tech baba.

[vasu_ray]

Thanks Arun, HSTDV with a 20 sec scram run the distance covered is about 50km, its significance seems defeating terminal air defenses and not necessarily achieve longer ranges, air defenses such as the s-300 etc, there are other things too ...



some say the HSTDV is the same as the Brahmos-2 and that assumption is kind of weird if Brahmos-2 is supposed to be a JV between India and Russia and the target is a Russian system such as the s-300



In the case of ISRO, how long will it take the RLV to exit the atmosphere? they also plan to have a ramjet and a scram jet in the same vehicle, its definitely more complex operationally

[ramana]

From Nayak...

Courtesy vayu

[Arun_S]

Brigadiaer Kanwal, has heavily drawn on my old articles and analysis for this article in Vayu. He was gracious to give credit to me (Arun Vishawakarma) on the Agni- data .



I have since then withdrawn my assessment and assertion of India having 250 kt strategic warhead

[Arun_S]

[url="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/%E2%80%98us-still-denying-us-technology%E2%80%99-866"]‘US still denying us technology’[/url]

March 7th, 2010The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is looking at providing technology for low-intensity conflicts such as terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as towards ensuring the security of Indian space assets, the DRDO chief and science adviser to the defence minister, Dr V.K. Saraswat, tells S. Raghotham in his first interview to the media since he assumed office in September 2009.



Q. The obvious first question — where are we on the missile roadmap?

A. We have two streams of missile programmes — strategic and tactical. There is a momentum, a certain push to achieve our requirements for strategic defence. Agni 3 is set for production in numbers. We have no doubt about the missile after three consecutive successful tests.

The 5,000-plus km range Agni 5 has moved out of the drawing board, developmental activities are on, subsystems work is in progress. We plan to do the first test flight by the end of the year.

After the successful test of Shourya, a canisterised missile with a range similar to Agni 1 — around 700 km— more and more of our missiles will go the canisterised way because then they can go on multiple platforms on land, air and sea. Next is a canisterised version of the 2,000-plus km range Agni 2.



Q. What about tactical missiles?

A. Nag, the anti-tank missile, will go in for repeat summer trials this year after we incorporated user (Indian Army) suggestions. It’s a third-generation anti-tank guided missile with infrared seeker. India will be only the third or fourth country to make such a missile.

We have led Akash, the air defence missile, to production. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has ordered eight squadrons of Akash missiles, the Army has ordered two batteries.

In new missiles, the Astra air-to-air beyond visual range missile has undergone four to five ground launch trials. We are now qualifying its infra-red seeker. Once ready, it will go on multiple platforms, including Tejas and Sukhoi fighters.

For the Navy, we are developing a canisterised anti-anti-ship missile, with a range of 70 km, and able to intercept manoeuvring targets. It is an advancement over the 15-km range Israeli Barak missile. We are developing the Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) in collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries. The first flight test will happen in mid-2010. We started developing a similar missile for the IAF in late 2009.



Q. What about Cruise missiles? Sub-launched missiles? K-15?

A. We are setting up a cruise missile development programme under Nirbhay. I won’t say more than that.



Q. What does the future look like for DRDO?

A. We have made a technology development plan for the next 25 years. It is dovetailed to projections made by the armed forces in their long-range plans, what they call the LTIPP (long-term integrated perspective plan), taking into account the changing nature of warfare and the threats that India is likely to face. It calls for directed basic research in technologies that are still in their infancy, customising technologies for different users and “productionising” the most mature technologies into platforms and systems. The focus is on improving the velocity of research. All research is now in mission mode.



Q. There has been criticism of the DRDO-military relationship.

A. Look, as I said, DRDO’s technology development plan is now dovetailed to the military’s LTIPP. Two, there is now increasing coordination between the services and DRDO. The military is now involved at every stage in our projects. Also, what we do now is, if a development project is estimated to take five years but the military wants the capability sooner, we say, go ahead and buy it from outside. So, the potential for conflict between DRDO and military does not arise.



Q. What is the status of the Rama Rao Committee report and DRDO reforms?

A. A panel headed by the defence secretary is looking into the issue of implementing the recommendations.



Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?

A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.

Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched.



Q. Can our current missiles be used for anti-satellite hits?

A. With modifications, yes. But that’s not our priority.



Q. What’s the third focus area?

A. Cyber security. As we move towards network-centric warfare, the security of the networks becomes a major requirement. DRDO already has a strong technological base in encryption and things like that. We want to enlarge that base to hardware and software to make our stand-alone systems impossible to penetrate, and harden for military usage those systems that have to work with commercial networks, such as the Internet. Cyber security will be most applicable in low-intensity conflicts. What we want is to be able to detect attacks on our systems and deny the attackers the pleasure.

Q. But much of the core electronics used in our defence equipment is imported.

A. So what we plan to do is to set up a facility to detect Trojans — viruses, hidden locks, killer switches — in the chips that we buy from outside before clearing them for usage in sensitive equipment.



Q. What are you doing to give a fillip to the private sector defence manufacturing base?

A. The DRDO has been partnering with industry for the last 25 years and has a network of 800 small and medium enterprises and large public and private enterprises working with us on various projects.

Now, we are starting a commercial arm of DRDO to transfer technology to industry. We already have a programme called ATAC (Technology Assessment and Commercialisation), with industry body Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) as our partner which identifies potential technology buyers.

There are also technologies that have a larger relevance for the civilian market. For instance, what we do in our life sciences labs — high-altitude agriculture, biomedical engineering research, nuclear-biological-chemical technologies, etc. The ministry of home affairs requires them for disaster management. For DRDO, 2010 is the year of R&D collaboration with industry, universities and the military.



Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?

A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year.



Q. But hasn’t it become easier since the Indo-US nuclear deal to obtain technology?

A. No. We are still victims of US denial regimes. Our labs are still on the “Entity List”. Technology denial continues. There is a big gap between American talk and action towards us.

[Arun_S]

A forum friend sent it by email:



[size="3"]‘I Will Have All the Needed Systems for BMD Phase I by 2013’



[/size]

Scientific advisor to the defence minister and director general, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Padmashri Dr V.K. Saraswat



After four successful tests, what is the status of the PAD (exo-atmospheric) and the AAD (endo-atmospheric) interceptors?



The Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme is in two phases. The first phase deals with targets at maximum ranges of 2,000km and the second phase will cover longer range targets up to 5,000km. This will be our strategy of BMD development. Two interceptors, PAD and AAD have been developed in phase I. These trials started with the exo interceptor (PAD) at the altitude of 48km and second trial with the altitude of 80km, and the endo interceptor (AAD) was 15km. The phase I activity is to increase the altitude of interception as much as possible within the limits of the design of the interceptor. Now we are aiming to increase the altitude of PAD to more than 100km. For this, we have made certain modifications in the interceptor. This year, we will test the modified PAD at an altitude of over 100km for a 2,000km range missile.



Are you talking about PDV?



Yes, the modified PAD will be PDV and it will have two changes. The first stage of PAD which is a liquid motor will be replaced by a solid motor stage with high energy levels. The second stage, ‘kill-vehicle’ has also been modified for higher interception accuracy. Earlier, in PAD, we had an RF seeker. Now we are introducing Imaging Infra Red (IIR) seeker also for higher accuracy. PAD also has ‘divert thruster’ on the second stage to bring better accuracy and controllability. The PDV will be tested by the end of this year, with these new features.



In your last interview you mentioned that the length of the PDV will be one metre more than the PAD.



Yes, this is correct.



You have been quoted as saying that phase I of the BMD will be operationally deployed by 2011. What does this mean?



Our commitment is to complete the flight trials of the phase I interceptor for the 2,000km range missile by 2011. By 2013, we will realise all the other elements, including radars, required for strategic defence.



What is meant by saying that ‘we will realise all the other elements’?



It means completion of development trials of interceptors. This is not a conventional weapon which requires large numbers; the production of the needed interceptor will not take much time. Between 2011, when the interceptor development trials are over, and 2013 we will put together the required number of the interceptors as well as other elements like radars and control centres, which need time.



Who will produce the interceptors and the other elements?



BDL and BEL will be the producing agencies. Several sub-systems will come from the private industry as well, for example, launchers will come from L&T.



Is it correct that you are looking for the PDV interception at 100km plus range and the AAD interception at 20km range in phase I for medium range 2,000km missiles?





Yes, this is correct.



Regarding other elements, let’s talk about the Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR). The present one that you have is of Israeli origin (Green Pine radar) with the range of 600km. How do you plan increasing this range, and will outside assistance be sought?



We are planning to enhance the detection range of the existing radars. The exact range is classified. However, considering that we now have the capability and the capacity to build all elements of state-of-the-art radar, the range enhancement will more or less be an indigenous effort.



Are there any plans of using satellites and air (Synthetic Aperture Radar and Infra Red means) for LRTR?



We have plans for this, but the availability of satellite with required payload called the missile monitoring system payload is likely to take four to five years. But the process is on. Regarding air, until our own AWACS system gets deployed, we cannot integrate that. What we have done is through the air force network and air defence network and mission control centre we have integrated the entire command and control structure including data transmission. So when these platforms are commissioned and our own AEW & C gets going, we will have the early warning, detection and tracking through these assets.



Are you saying that until the AWACS and AEW & C systems are not commissioned, your BM/C3I (battle management and Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence system) for the BMD will not be realised?



This is not correct. I will have all the needed systems for BMD phase I as mentioned to you by 2013. What it means is that once I have air and satellite assets available, I will have more reaction time for ballistic missile defence. Let’s say that today I have 120 seconds available to me between detection of a missile and its interception. Once I have air- or satellite-based assets, they give me a dual advantage by providing early warning as well as early cue to the LRTR. What this means is that of now I have 150 seconds available to me, I can enhance the interception from 100km to a higher altitude. Thus, the present system does not have any deficiencies; it will get better once the additional assets are available. I will get 20 to 30 per cent incremental advantage, both in detection and interception.



Are you planning any incremental changes in the MFFCS (multi-functional fire control system) that you have acquired from Thales that has the range of 350km?



The MFFCS is fine and does not need any further modification.



How many more interceptor tests have you planned?



As I mentioned, the PDV test is slated for later this year and an AAD test will be done in March 2011. The range for AAD will be 15 to 18km.



What are your plans for phase II?



In phase II, we plan to take on targets with ranges till 5,000km. This has two implications: One, the targets come to you at a higher velocity, and two, they come from higher altitude. For these targets, early warning and incremental increase in detection becomes essential. For this reason, it is important that the range of the long-range tracking radar be more than 1,000km. We have started work on this and it will take up to three years. When I say that this will be indigenous, it means that design and development will be done here, while computers and certain other essentials like TR modules will be procured from outside. You know that it is neither possible nor desirable to make everything within the country. Once work on radar is going on, we will also be working on the AAD 1 and AAD 2. For such targets, the interceptors need more agility, higher energy and higher speed. For example, AAD 2 will have speed of Mach 6 to 8, which is completely hypersonic. Today, the speed of AAD is between Mach 4 and 5, and is being called high supersonic. We will also increase the endo-atmospheric interception to more than 30km altitude. Similarly, the exo-atmospheric interception will cross the 200km altitude limit. The design for both these interceptors has been completed and we are already in the propulsion testing mode. Considering that they are new missiles, this process will take time. Roughly, we are looking at 2015 when phase II interceptors will be realised.



You have been quoted in the media saying that India is ahead of China in BMD. What does this mean?



I have been quoted out of context. What I had said was that we have taken steps to develop BMD from 1995 onwards. The Chinese have also started their work. They have shown satellite interception and recently on January 13, they have shown ballistic missile interception. That is all I said and this cannot be interpreted as saying that India is ahead of China. I also told them that I do not know when the Chinese actually started work on BMD. As a scientist, if I have to say anything, I would say that they have already demonstrated satellite interception capability, so in a way they are ahead.



You have also been quoted saying that like China, we do not need to demonstrate satellite interception capability. What does this mean?



Demonstrating satellite interception is not something that is necessary to acquiring this capability. Satellite, as you know, has a predictable path, whether it is in the polar, low earth or any other orbit. To check my interception capability, I can always simulate satellite path electronically. I will generate an electronic scenario at the launch-pad as if I am getting the data from another satellite or ground-based radar and take that as the inputs to my mission-control centre and then launch as interceptor. Since the path is known, I can accurately know if I have hit the target or not, unlike the ballistic missiles, where the path can be unpredictable because of aero-dynamic and many other reasons. So technically, we have concluded that we do not need to check our building blocks to ascertain whether we have satellite interception capability.



Why have the Chinese felt the need to demonstrate satellite-interception capability?



I do not know. Only they can answer this question.



Is there any benefit in seeing an actual demonstration?



There are no technical benefits but maybe there are other benefits including 100 per cent assurance. These days, we have a lot of capability that actual flying tests are not required. Every time we make a change, we don’t have to flight-test the capability.



You have also been quoted as saying that we don’t need to build and store missiles as we have the capability to convert two weapon systems at short notice. The question is, a certain number of missiles will always need to be made and stored as, after all, how short is the short notice. Would you agree with this?



This statement was made to the media in the context of the Agni missile. You will appreciate that the Agni class of system is not a tactical missile. When you talk of strategic missiles and you don’t have a threat today for these class of weapon system, and I was saying this in the context of an ICBM then there is no need to make and store these weapons.



Are you saying that certain number of the Agni series of missiles, including Agni I, Agni II and Agni III have not been made and stored?



No, this is being done as per the requirement.



Which is the production agency?



BDL is the production agency and they are well geared up for producing these series of missiles.



Another statement attributed to you is that you are making Multiple Independent Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRV)?



I never said that we will make the MIRV. We have no plans for MIRV. All I said was that we are working on Agni V.

Few more observations:

1. Solid fuel and longer length booster will allow PDV greater horizontal (azimuth) reach , thus expanded protection bubble.



2. Its faster acceleration compared to PAD means crucial more seconds for radar and ground sensor fusion cluster to more accuratly determine trajectory equation Plus position and velocity vector on that trajectory; meaning smaller kill box for the interceptor, translating to higher Pk



3. Regarding sensor, I read that to men it will use both radar and optical sensor, to do sensor fusion that could help decoy discrimination. IMHO what better example of sensor fusion than the BrahMos-II.



4. The following stmt is important to note:

This is not correct. I will have all the needed systems for BMD phase I as mentioned to you by 2013. What it means is that once I have air and satellite assets available, I will have more reaction time for ballistic missile defence. Let’s say that today I have 120 seconds available to me between detection of a missile and its interception. Once I have air- or satellite-based assets, they give me a dual advantage by providing early warning as well as early cue to the LRTR. What this means is that of now I have 150 seconds available to me, I can enhance the interception from 100km to a higher altitude. Thus, the present system does not have any deficiencies; it will get better once the additional assets are available. I will get 20 to 30 per cent incremental advantage, both in detection and interception.



5. For space based detection, the lunch plume detection is the method to detect possible launch and cue LRTR. Geo sat satellites with telescope looking into earth's horizon is the key.



6. In AI07 LRDE engineer said they are developing their own TR modules, while the highest power version for LRTR may be imported, IMHO their second track in also in progress.

[Arun_S]

[url="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/army-opts-for-nag-missile-as-it-enters-final-trials/387858/"]Army opts for Nag missile as it enters final trials[/url]

Ajai Shukla / Hyderabad March 08, 2010, 1:09 IST

In Rajasthan, this May, the indigenously developed Nag (Cobra) missile will undergo a final round of trials before entering service in the Indian Army’s arsenal. Developed by the Defence R&D Laboratory (DRDL) in Hyderabad, the army is delighted with how the Nag has performed in a series of earlier trials. A senior army officer calls it “the world’s deadliest anti-tank guided missile (ATGM)”.



Indian infantry formations urgently want a potent ATGM to handle Pakistani tank forces that now bristle with capable Ukrainian T-80 and Chinese T-85 tanks.



So confident is the army about the Nag that, even before trails are completed, it has budgeted Rs 335 crores for buying 443 Nag missiles, which will be manufactured at the public sector Bharat Dynamics Limited. The missiles will equip Reconnaissance and Support Battalions, mechanised units that locate and destroy enemy tanks.



In trials last summer six Nag missiles were fired at tanks 3-4 km away; each of them hit their target precisely. Next month the Nag must demonstrate its capability at its minimum range of 500 metres.



“Since the Nag travels at 230 metres per second, it has just 2 seconds to align itself to a target that is 500 metres away. But we are confident that the Nag will meet this requirement during the forthcoming trials”, the DRDL’s Officiating Director, Amal Chakrabarti, told Business Standard during a visit to the Hyderabad missile complex.



The Nag is a third-generation (Gen-3), “fire-and-forget” missile; once it is fired, its seeker automatically guides the missile to even a fast-moving tank. In earlier-generation missiles an operator had to guide it all the way, often exposing himself to enemy fire. The world has just a handful of “fire-and-forget” missiles, such as the American Javelin, and the Israeli Spike. The Javelin and the Spike are lighter missiles that can be carried by a soldier; the Nag is a heavier and more powerful missile designed to operate from vehicles and helicopters.



While the infrared seekers of the Javelin and the Spike can be jammed, the Nag’s optical guidance system makes it virtually jam-proof. The indigenous development of an imaging seeker, a highly complex and closely guarded technology, is the Nag’s greatest triumph.



Here’s how it works. Nag missile operators search for enemy tanks through thermal imaging telescopes, which see as well by night as they do by day. Picking up a tank, the operator locks the Nag’s seeker onto the target. A digital snapshot of the target is automatically taken, which serves as a reference image. As the Nag streaks towards the target, at 230 metres per second, the seeker takes repeated snapshots of the target; each one is compared with the reference image, and deviations are translated through on-board algorithms into corrections to the Nag’s control fins, which steer the missile precisely at the target.



This method of firing is termed “lock-on before launch” or LOBL. In the pipeline is an even more sophisticated method —- “lock-on after launch” or LOAL —- for the helicopter-mounted Nag, or HELINA, which can target a tank 7 kilometres away. Since the target will seldom be visible at such a distance, the missile operator launches the HELINA in the general direction of the target. As it flies towards the target, the Nag’s seeker downlinks to the missile operator images of the area ahead; after travelling 3-4 kilometres, i.e. after about 12-16 seconds, the operator will be able to identify enemy tanks. He will lock the seeker onto the tank he wishes to destroy, and the command will be uplinked to the missile in mid-flight. After that, the missile homes in onto the target and destroys it.



The Nag provides its operator with another important tactical advantage. The plume of burning propellant from the tail of most missiles gives away its flight path and allows the target to get behind cover. The Nag, in contrast, is visible only during the first one second of flight, when the missile’s booster imparts 90% of the momentum; after that, a sustainer maintains the missile’s speed, burning a smokeless propellant that is practically invisible.



Acceptance of the Nag missile into service will be a triumphant conclusion to the Defence R&D Organisation’s (DRDO’s) long-delayed, but eventually successful, Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). Initiated in 1983 by then DRDO boss, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the IGMDP set out to develop five missiles: the Agni and Prithvi ballistic missiles; the Akash and Trishul anti-aircraft missiles; and the Nag ATGM. Only the Trishul will have failed to be accepted into service.

[Guest]

We have no plans for MIRV. Dr. V.K SARASWAT







"We have made major progress on the MIRVs in the last two years," AVINASH CHANDER

[Arun_S]

[quote name='ankit-s' date='09 March 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1268130947' post='104992']

We have no plans for MIRV. Dr. V.K SARASWAT







"We have made major progress on the MIRVs in the last two years," AVINASH CHANDER

[/quote]



I guess the elephant walks no matter what <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Arun_S]

[quote name='ankit-s' date='09 March 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1268130947' post='104992']

We have no plans for MIRV. Dr. V.K SARASWAT







"We have made major progress on the MIRVs in the last two years," AVINASH CHANDER

[/quote]



I guess the elephant walks no matter what <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Arun_S]

Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?

A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.

Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched

This probably has not been reported before





I would like to know the weight of this quick launch satellites. Kalam saab used to talk about launch a sat from Agni series.

Ramana: A reconfigured 3 stage Agni-V can place 700 Kg satellite in 400 km altitude orbit at 110 degree inclination.

[Guest]

Couple of points



We can now conclude that the definitive variant of PAD will be the all solid fuel PDV with IIR seeker , the PAD acted as Proof Of Concept Interceptor Vehical plus provided a quick deployable solution to deal with Pak threat



The PDV with greater than interception altitude of 100 km should be capable of intercepting LEO satellites with modification



VKS backed down on his we are better than China perhaps with some nudge from GOI ?Now he says China is better



AAD-1 and AAD-2 clearly designed to deal with higher IRBM,full ICBM threats , its also good to know we are working on Sat based EW system and integration with AWACS and other assets.

[Guest]

Arun since they are replacing the liquid first stage of PAD with a solid booster and its 1 m longer



1 ) Will it have the same kind of control surfaces clipped wings etc as the current liquid fuel PAD will have , or will it use flex nozzle to give it quicker/better maneuverability and eliminate those dragy wings ?



2 ) Will the solid stage have the same diameter considering length has increased by 1 m ?

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Austin' date='10 March 2010 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1268187343' post='105018']

Arun since they are replacing the liquid first stage of PAD with a solid booster and its 1 m longer



1 ) Will it have the same kind of control surfaces clipped wings etc as the current liquid fuel PAD will have , or will it use flex nozzle to give it quicker/better maneuverability and eliminate those dragy wings ?[/quote]

Prithvi core in the PAD required the basic confign including those mid-body clipped delta wings. PDV with solid booster will instead have back set fins for low altitude maneuvering (like Shourya). I do not think PAD booster require too much maneuvering, it is essentially needs to deliver the second stage high up in atmosphere, thus its flight vector is almost straight. Compare that to AAD that requires flex nozzle because it is single stage rocket with endo-atmospheric engagement.

2 ) Will the solid stage have the same diameter considering length has increased by 1 m ?

PDV solid booster will be specially designed for highest possible acceleration. I anticipate its booster diameter to remain substantially unchanged (viz 0.9 to 1.2 meter), and will use composite case or maraging steel (the latter being more likely).

[emperor]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='09 March 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1268184749' post='105015']

Ramana: A reconfigured 3 stage Agni-V can place 700 Kg satellite in 400 km altitude orbit at 110 degree inclination.

[/quote]

May be not Arun.

Even an A-III with no modification is reaching a peak height of 350km with 2500KG payload capability.

Maybe your numbers need some alteration?