Indian Missile News And Discussion

[ramana]

Has the Shourya been ever launched from a ship or were the trials all from land?

[Guest]

[quote name='ramana' date='14 September 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1284477328' post='108325']

Has the Shourya been ever launched from a ship or were the trials all from land?

[/quote]



So far it has all been from land or from the specially developed submerged pontoon

[Guest]

JDW on latest Brahmos Launch ( via Black Eagle )

[ramana]

Austin, Couple the news of the Blk II missiles with the SFC requiring 40 planes as the tools for escalation control are being put in place. Blk II will be the precision strike capability and the SFC planes to manage the escalation.

[Guest]

Well yes the fact that SFC has opted for 40 Aircraft looks like they are keen to establish a more visible part of deterrence that can be gradually escalated in view of people that can see them , expect calls from Washington we see you are refueling the Bomber from your base time to deescalate.



Here is something on the new supersonic cruise missile from AW&ST ( via Black Eagle )

[sai_k]

Awesome "proliferation" report. The air launched versions perhaps would take more importance [for targets greater than 1K km >NE>]. I wish now for UCAV from LCA baseline to carry these fiery cruisers.

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='12 August 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1281598313' post='107865']

Regarding ABM resistance, worth factoring the following:



1. For a BGRV type hypersonic craft that is flying in complex trajectory toward a group of probable cluster of targets, no radar network can compute what is in the mind of the Shourya's computer (need a psychic's service) ; so forget about firing a SAM to take it down.



2. SAMS are not launched in air waiting for target (like fighter cap). They have a very small kill box that better be accurately projected in time - space.



3. BGRV type hypersonic craft can pull sustained G > 100, coupled with INS guideline/control it can pull the most unpredictable trajectory to its chosen target.



4. Even for Prayduman or AAD it will be very difficult to take on BGRV type target. Forget about S300, S400 style interceptors whose G rate is limited.

[/quote]







India's Hypersonic Boost Glide Missile - Shourya is a significant milestone in building capability for the nation in the field of missiles both for strategic and tactical applications.



It is interesting (but not surprising) to note that US is also working on Hypersonic Boost Glide technology for a long time.



This article says it all. " Missiles for Peace" http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/08/4662003

[gangajal1]

A Prithvi-II missile from the SFC stock failed. Prithvi is the most intensely tested missile in India. If such a missile fails, how reliable is India's nuclear warheads when only 6 nuke tests have been carried out and the most important H-bomb test is a disputed one?



The implication of this failure is a sobering one.

[ramana]

At a simple level need more of them. Also how was the PII stored in SFC stocks/ Being liquid fueled it might have been filled up just in time. How was it transported ? Could those loads have caused a fuel supply issue? A lot to investigate. BTW in most countries flight failures of operational vehicles are classified. Its not so in India which advertises them as a CBM.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Prithvi-II-fails-to-take-off-in-user-s-trial/H1-Article1-604040.aspx"]Prithvi-II fails to take off in user's trial[/url]

The failure to lift Prithvi-II was due to a snag either in the main missile or the sub-system, including the launcher," they said, adding the test-fire was slated to be held as part of user's trial by the armed forces.



During today's planned trial, a noise could be heard as smoke billowed from the launch site around the time of the blasting.



Efforts were on to ascertain the exact reason behind the failure on the part of the missile to take off and defence scientists were examining the matter thoroughly, they said.



The last four user's trials of the surface-to-surface missile were successfully conducted during the about one year period, from the same site in the ITR.

[gangajal1]

If improper storage has affected PII then how can we know how storage is affecting the boosted fission warheads since these warheads can not be tested? How does India know the reliability of its warheads?

[ramana]

If you read carefully the sequence in Hindu article, the vehicle ignition occured. After that it did not sustain and thus did not develop thrust rsulting in no lift-off. So most likely issues are the fuel delivery system - plumbing, pumps etc. Being liquid fueled, the vehicle gets filled up just before launch and being test vehicle all sorts of checkouts happen before ignition. Maybe the pump jammed. We have to wait and hear what the investigation says.

[ramana]

We need to understand more the 1.5 tonne payload capacity of the A-III. There is a message in the weight being stated.

[ramana]

The one tonne payload requirement creeps in during the IGMP recast in 1984. Ref. Wings of Fire. Arunachalam and Kalam go to Delhi to meet the RM to present their plan of sequential development of the candidate vehicles. He listens and suggest parallel development and upgrades the Agni requirement from a small experiment to a one tonne payload.



After the POII tests press reports suggest the weight of the T/N was ~500kg ie half the goal.



After the doubts about the T/N in POK II, we are again at the large weight payload. And for AIII its 1.5 tonne.



So what is this one?

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Austin' date='17 September 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1284726023' post='108361']

Well yes the fact that SFC has opted for 40 Aircraft looks like they are keen to establish a more visible part of deterrence that can be gradually escalated in view of people that can see them , expect calls from Washington we see you are refueling the Bomber from your base time to deescalate.



Here is something on the new supersonic cruise missile from AW&ST ( via Black Eagle )





[/quote]



The Qty 40 for SFC are not Su-30MKI but much more heavier and long range dual crew (side by side seating) aircraft SU-34. It apparently also has a small kitchenett.



Looks like R.Chi-dumbrum's (emphasis added) bums are only of dumb variety and that aircraft's are required to deliver those big-ass high yield dumb bums to convincingly persuade those who are not persuaded by few 20-50 kt fatakadas on Indian missiles.





On Wiki:

[size="5"][/size]

[size="5"][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34"]SU-34[/url][/size]



The Sukhoi Su-34 ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language"]Russian[/url]: Сухой Су-34) (export designation: Su-32, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name"]NATO reporting name[/url]: Fullback) is an advanced [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia"]Russian[/url] 2-seat [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-attack_aircraft"]fighter-bomber[/url]. It is intended to eventually replace the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24"]Sukhoi Su-24[/url] and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M"]Tupolev Tu-22M[/url].





Specifications (Su-34)

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sukhoi_Su-34.png"][/url] Data from Sukhoi data,[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#cite_note-20"][21][/url][/sup] Gordon and Davison[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#cite_note-Gordon_p92-21"][22][/url][/sup] AF Technology[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#cite_note-22"][23][/url][/sup]



General characteristics

• Crew: Two
• Length: 23.34 m (72 ft 2 in)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan"]Wingspan[/url]: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
• Height: 6.09 m (19 ft 5 in)
• Loaded weight: 39,000 kg (85,980 lb)
• Useful load: 8,000 kg (17,600 lb)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight"]Max takeoff weight[/url]: 45,100 kg (99,425 lb)
• Powerplant: 2× [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyulka_AL-31"]Lyulka AL-35F[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan"]turbofans[/url], 12,500 kgf (122.6 kN, 27,560 lbf) with afterburner each

Performance

• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno"]Maximum speed[/url]:
  • High altitude: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number"]Mach[/url] 1.8 (1,900 km/h, 1,180 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mph"]mph[/url])
  • Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (1,400 km/h, 870 mph) at sea level
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_radius"]Combat radius[/url]: 1,100 km (680 mi)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_range"]Ferry range[/url]: 4,000 km (2,490 mi)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29"]Service ceiling[/url]: 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading"]Wing loading[/url]: 629 kg/m² (129 lb/ft²)
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio"]Thrust/weight[/url]: 0.68

Priceless damage and cost imposed on Indian security due to dumbness and failures of R. Chidambram to deliver in May 1998/Pokhran.

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='ramana' date='29 September 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1285702999' post='108537']

The one tonne payload requirement creeps in during the IGMP recast in 1984. Ref. Wings of Fire. Arunachalam and Kalam go to Delhi to meet the RM to present their plan of sequential development of the candidate vehicles. He listens and suggest parallel development and upgrades the Agni requirement from a small experiment to a one tonne payload.



After the POII tests press reports suggest the weight of the T/N was ~500kg ie half the goal.



After the doubts about the T/N in POK II, we are again at the large weight payload. And for AIII its 1.5 tonne.



So what is this one?

[/quote]



According to Arun's article, Agni III with 3 stages can carry almost 3000 kg of Payload with a range of 4000 km. What we usually see in the media is the payload for Agni III with 2 stages.



From Arun's article, 550 kg of FBF warhead can yield 150 kilotons and 180 kg FBF yields 17 kilotons



Agni III with 3 stages (MIRVs)



8100 km @ 1500 kg. (3 x 500 to 550 kg FBF Warheads) Yield - 450 kilotons or (8 x 180 kg FBF warheads) Yield - 136 kilotons





According to me, something good came out of TN (lack of confidence), regardless of cost. We are more cautious now and concentrating on numbers. More missiles, more warheads, different types of delivery systems and of course more destruction.

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='ramana' date='29 September 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1285702999' post='108537']

The one tonne payload requirement creeps in during the IGMP recast in 1984. Ref. Wings of Fire. Arunachalam and Kalam go to Delhi to meet the RM to present their plan of sequential development of the candidate vehicles. He listens and suggest parallel development and upgrades the Agni requirement from a small experiment to a one tonne payload.



After the POII tests press reports suggest the weight of the T/N was ~500kg ie half the goal.



After the doubts about the T/N in POK II, we are again at the large weight payload. And for AIII its 1.5 tonne.



So what is this one?

[/quote]



sorry, corrected the Payload with MK-4 and MK-6 RVs



8100 km @ 1500 kg. (3 x 500 to 550 kg FBF Warheads) Yield - 450 kilotons or (8 x 180 kg FBF warheads) Yield - 136 kilotons



RV MK-5 (340 kg TN warhead with 200 kilotons yield-Field test verification needed)



RV MK-5 could also be 340 kg FBF with 50 kilotons Yield.

[Arun_S]

Bharat ji: Ramana ji is very much aware of my articles and my rational.

His questions should make us all think of other unknowns.

[HareKrishna]

MRCA-Raffale or Eurofighter?

[Bharat_2009]

Agni II (AT) test again postponed for early 2011. It is an advanced missile. Arun sir-can answer this question. Do you think Agni II(AT) is going to be another boost glide missile in our arsenal?



Are we looking at Boost Glide RV for Agni II (AT)??



if yes, then it can compensate on TN warhead (Lack of confidence)