• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indian Missile News And Discussion
[quote name='osman' date='19 June 2013 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1371588434' post='116683']

@Ramana,



I used this terminal velocity calculator to get some approximate answers to your question. Might be way way off the mark.



[url="http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal"]http://www.calctool....ospace/terminal[/url]



Terminal velocity of A1 is approximately 244 m/s for a cross section of 1 meters, weight of 500kg and a drag coefficient of 0.1.



Terminal velocity of A1 is approximately 345 m/s for a cross section of 1 meters, weight of 1 ton and a drag coefficient of 0.1.



The last frame of the fuse being tested on A1 enteres the frame at 1.26 explodes at 1.27 and a part of the entry vehicle seems to touch the sea at 1.29 or 1.30.



So the fuse seems to be blown at 345 x 2 or 244 x 2 = 488 m to 690m



If the cs of the reentry vehicle is smaller the terminal velocity could be higher at 550 m/s which makes the fuse at 1000 meters high. It will change according to the warhead design but Agni I seems to be housing the 15kt fission warheads for deterrence against Pakistan or at least that seems to be the fuze tested. If the fuze tested was TN the reduced cross section would have increased the height to 1000 or 1100 meters.



Please feel free to point out any errors in the calculations. I don't have rocketsim or similar packages. I am a bit short on time now. Will read up some more on derivation from the first principles some other time to confirm these numbers using basic physics of ballistic missiles.

[/quote]

Atmospheric pressure changes quite sharply during re-entry into denser part of altitude. Almost always RV's don't reach terminal velocity. Simulations give proper answers.



A1 for maximum range enters at near 45 degree inclination. Thus not knowing the cross angle of camera shot can be overcome by only requiring change in vertical altitude.



Some information to consider for A1 with 1,000 Kg warhead at full range:

  1. Air speed : 1,750 m/sec (at 3 Km altitude)
  2. Angle: 45 deg (thus vertical component of velocity is 1.24km/sec)
  3. Time from air burst altitude to half the air-burst altitude: ~ 1 second. (during this time the velocity did not noticeably change; to be expected due to disfigured payload and change of Cd there of.
  4. The camera distance was >> air bust altitude, so the sine ~ tan
  5. Thus the air-burst was at about 2.5 Km altitude (The error depends on time measurement. If one gets finer time stamp measurement teh estimate will be more accurate )

Now that can give an idea of the payload yield because there is an optimum air-burst altitude for a given payload.
  Reply
Wiki says something on optimal altitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_...explosions



Desired overpressure threshold depends on target is for conter-value or counter force



Quote:Military planners prefer to maximise the range at which 10 psi, or more, is extended over when attacking [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue"]countervalue[/url] targets, thus a 220 m height of burst would be preferred for a 1 kiloton blast. To find the optimum height of burst for any weapon yield, the cubed root of the yield in kilotons is multiplied by the ideal H.O.B for a 1 kt blast, e.g. the optimum height of burst for a 500 kt weapon is ~ 1745 m.
  Reply
As my Punjabi friends say bhale! bhale!
  Reply
[quote name='Arun_S' date='23 June 2013 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1371968715' post='116688']

Atmospheric pressure changes quite sharply during re-entry into denser part of altitude. Almost always RV's don't reach terminal velocity. Simulations give proper answers.



A1 for maximum range enters at near 45 degree inclination. Thus not knowing the cross angle of camera shot can be overcome by only requiring change in vertical altitude.



Some information to consider for A1 with 1,000 Kg warhead at full range:

  1. Air speed : 1,750 m/sec (at 3 Km altitude)
  2. Angle: 45 deg (thus vertical component of velocity is 1.24km/sec)
  3. Time from air burst altitude to half the air-burst altitude: ~ 1 second. (during this time the velocity did not noticeably change; to be expected due to disfigured payload and change of Cd there of.
  4. The camera distance was >> air bust altitude, so the sine ~ tan
  5. Thus the air-burst was at about 2.5 Km altitude (The error depends on time measurement. If one gets finer time stamp measurement teh estimate will be more accurate )

Now that can give an idea of the payload yield because there is an optimum air-burst altitude for a given payload.

[/quote]



I just have some questions on this:

1) Is 45 degree angle at full range the launch trajectory providing maximum range?

2) Your reasoning on the half air-bust altitude and Cd change are clearly observable and the projectile does slow down considerably from thereon in. Do you include a correction for this in your final figure?



The following are just questions on the right weapon for pakistan and right weapons in general:

3) Won't a 2.5 km high bust also be a problem with prevailing winds and subsequent fall out being blown our way? (To partially answer this question, unkil tested plenty right next to Los Angeles or was it Las Vegas and people still live there ... so maybe its not such a big concern ...)

4) If the 2.5 km figures are right did they overcompensate in the corrections made because of the fizzle warhead?
  Reply
Once the Agni is unleashed does it really matter prevailing winds and other immaterial stuff?



No overcompensation.

It was the original 1 tonne payload that Kalamji was retasked in 1984 when he wanted a small payload for ReX. The new retasked project, part of IGMP, was called Agni or as Microsft Word suggests Agony.



And add RC Agarwal's recollections on the reentry velocity the first model was designed for ~7 km/sec.



--

Another thing even if 45 degree was the vehicle launch trajectory, the RV( <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' /> )re-enters at its optimum angle of attack. Thats the job of the High Alt Engine etc.
  Reply
[quote name='osman' date='24 June 2013 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1372055638' post='116691']

I just have some questions on this:

1) Is 45 degree angle at full range the launch trajectory providing maximum range?

[/quote]



The maximum range trajectory angle when booster burnout for short range missiles (range < 1500 Km) is stay put at around 45 degrees (the re-entry is the same. For longer range missiles the maximum range angle is shallower, and their re-entry angle is also shallower.
  Reply
Err read my note on the angle. Its target dependent.
  Reply
Osmanbhai, If we take notional 15 kt and back calculate the HOB then we get ~ 540 m.



I think that tallies with your calc of ~488 m.



Good enough from the video without time stamp.



So pratikhsa karo for next A V splashdown video.
  Reply
[quote name='ramana' date='25 June 2013 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1372111013' post='116698']

Osmanbhai, If we take notional 15 kt and back calculate the HOB then we get ~ 540 m.



I think that tallies with your calc of ~488 m.



Good enough from the video without time stamp.



So pratikhsa karo for next A V splashdown video.

[/quote]



Yes. I hope to see Agni V with those MIRV's. Either way the calculation, if fine for AI. We could use A1 for two roles like Arun pointed out. Counter-force and Counter-value. We really don't have the gradation made out in terms of counter-force and counter value at the lower end of our missiles. A-IV clearly looks like counter-force, but I could be wrong.



I met a submariner today who served in the US Navy and is trained in nuclear physics. I hope to run the numbers on the SHP and other numbers by him to estimate the approximate number of nuclear warheads we will carry. He was all like all missiles we carried were no good. They only existed because the other guys had them. He even showed me a model of the submarine he served on. Interestingly, the model he had looked a lot like the original Airhant picture with lots of missile tubes at the back in all sixteen. He says now the torpedoes are side launched as the front end is all sonar now. He of course served on a submarine many many many years ago. But he was quiet happy to talk about it.



The second Arihant picture from the video with only four missile tubes is possibly DDM to give the impression we don't have too many missiles in our subs. We are a chota nooklear pawaar. I think the missile tubes vs missiles and consequently, the number of missiles and number of warheads will lead to the wrong estimates. Only elukundalawada knows how many we have and some people at the top of the chain. I think this is good. Keep the enemy confused until the final deployment. I am impressed with DRDO and how they selectively leak stuff and then do other stuff to muddy the waters.



As to why I was worried about prevailing winds and stuff:



It was more of a doctrinal question. We have moved from the not mated and stored position or are moving out with the undersea triad. If this is true, how far did we move? Did we move from no first strike to as Shyam Saran put it "No first strike against non-nuclear powers" or "no first strike until we are hit with even a small battle field nuke?". If we moved as Shyam Saran put it to a hair trigger second strike, we might still have hopes of winning the war with Pakistan on the nuclear front with no or minimal losses on our end. Otherwise, the scenario is laid out below for a full blown destruction of the world ... If we do hope to destroy Pakistan and survive and yet not get to the end of the world ... 15-16KT vs the Megaton monsters makes a lot of difference...



So the question, I ask doctrinally is, " Should we plan to wage nuclear war against Pakistan and not get to MAD?" or "Should we be a MAD power with Pakistan?". With a BMD going up and other plans I am not so sure we are exactly being good boys here w.r.t Pakistan ... w.r.t to China maybe we need to be a MAD elephant with some extra long tusks to keep out the 7th fleet or analogues ...







"Now look at this bit of game theory. Lets assume India and Pakistan are engaged in a war. Pakistan strikes Indian territory with nukes. India will retaliate against Pakistan. Do you think this is a rational play? It's only partly rational. The real rational player will strike both Pakistan and China. What do you think two front war means? Prepare for a two front war is a signal from Raksha Mantri. If you induce war in this region we will retaliate with a "second" strike. A rational game theory requires you to destroy as much of China as possible after your population centers in India are taken out. You will cease to be a viable "second" strike power after the war is over with Pakistan. Therefore as a rational nuclear player you will strike Chinese population centers. They may hit back at India but then most of our population centers are gone. Shyam Saran also hinted at this recently when he said the traditional bipolar nuclear analysis does not apply to India.



So what does China do? You tell me. If this is the "two-front" war. What is the incentive of USA and UK incase Pakistan nukes India with permanent deterrent patrols and without deterrent patrols?



Without permanent deterrent patrols:

a) Nuke Pakistan to stone age under UN authority;

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Try and seize Indian nukes to prevent India escalating the war to China even if China induced the war;

c) a and b;

d) Let the war escalate to China with possibility of a scorched China being as rational as a rational nuclear player India ...





If I am an Indian planner I will definitely look forward to permanent defensive patrols. This is the only rational option. To me "two-front" war is synonymous with this rational player. Therefore, our doctrine is to make Indian nukes as good as the best. Survivable, global patrol with MIRV SLBMs. This is a credible deterrent for a rational player.



Therefore based on these reasons I believe we will have permanent deterrent patrols. 2/3rd of our nuclear assets by 2020 or 2025 will be submarine based. Most of these will be MIRV missiles."



What I wrote in another forum.
  Reply
Arihant missile tube configuration 1

http://oi50.tinypic.com/9q8cqu.jpg



Arihant missile tube configuration 2

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/SoikQR.../pics1.jpg



I like some part of configuration 2. Seems like all sonar front end in configuration 2. The Torpedoes seem to be be side launched (?). MIRV with multiple warhead fire from four launch tubes, with time for reloads? Not terribly comforting but, something is better than nothing.



In configuration1, it seems to be more like the design of cutting out part of the hull once complete and placing the missile tube section in and re-welding the hull (The possible objective being to maintain the structural integrity during construction to enable the sub to withstand extreme pressures with minimal areas for failure). Kind of makes sense if we think of the great compressive forces down below ...



It's absolutely fascinating ...
  Reply
First Indian RV's never fly at a speed determined by terminal velocity (its a sitting duck for even simple ABM systems). So any projection/estimation using that approach is incorrect.



I earlier just put some calcuation (quoted below) based on the assumptions that the RV flew a ballistic trajectory.



[quote name='Arun_S' date='23 June 2013 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1371968715' post='116688']

Atmospheric pressure changes quite sharply during re-entry into denser part of altitude. Almost always RV's don't reach terminal velocity. Simulations give proper answers.



A1 for maximum range enters at near 45 degree inclination. Thus not knowing the cross angle of camera shot can be overcome by only requiring change in vertical altitude.



Some information to consider for A1 with 1,000 Kg warhead at full range:

  1. Air speed : 1,750 m/sec (at 3 Km altitude)
  2. Angle: 45 deg (thus vertical component of velocity is 1.24km/sec)
  3. Time from air burst altitude to half the air-burst altitude: ~ 1 second. (during this time the velocity did not noticeably change; to be expected due to disfigured payload and change of Cd there of.
  4. The camera distance was >> air bust altitude, so the sine ~ tan
  5. Thus the air-burst was at about 2.5 Km altitude (The error depends on time measurement. If one gets finer time stamp measurement teh estimate will be more accurate )

Now that can give an idea of the payload yield because there is an optimum air-burst altitude for a given payload.

[/quote]



However A1 RV are known to be maneuvering kind (MaRV), and they can fly level (or sloped / gliding) where their vertical decent speed can be vastly slower compared to decend rate for a ballistic re-entry. Thus it is impossible to estimate HOB with that one video (too little information). The only conclusion that can be made with certainty was the RV sparked very very close to the boxed space and the camera was stationary and looking at a tiney space (defined by the kill box),, meaning the RV showed up where it was expected (aimed at).
  Reply
[quote name='Arun_S' date='28 June 2013 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1372387343' post='116702']

First Indian RV's never fly at a speed determined by terminal velocity (its a sitting duck for even simple ABM systems). So any projection/estimation using that approach is incorrect.



I earlier just put some calcuation (quoted below) based on the assumptions that the RV flew a ballistic trajectory.







However A1 RV are known to be maneuvering kind (MaRV), and they can fly level (or sloped / gliding) where their vertical decent speed can be vastly slower compared to decend rate for a ballistic re-entry. Thus it is impossible to estimate HOB with that one video (too little information). The only conclusion that can be made with certainty was the RV sparked very very close to the boxed space and the camera was stationary and looking at a tiney space (defined by the kill box),, meaning the RV showed up where it was expected (aimed at).

[/quote]





We seem to test a lot of Agni I and II's these days. Maybe they are just using the old stuff to train and replace them with the new goodies? Most of these tests are just missiles randomly picked up from our stockpile. Our war games in the past also use this strategy and we use live ammunition close to their end of life.
  Reply
Saves disposal costs and adds to stats database.



I think the real deal is three vehicles per tube for the K-15s.

And just four for K4 when it appears.



I too like the second config.



"We dont know what we dont know, till we know."
  Reply
Duplicate.
  Reply
We are moving towards a mated second strike capability. The stored separately policy seems to have been abandoned. Anytime, anywhere launch within minutes is our current doctrine for "second strike." We also know "second strike" can be triggered by "any" nuclear launch including battlefield tactical weapons. Prahaar is also being inducted in the 150km range role and Prithvi forward is being withdrawn and refurbished with newer guidance systems. Although, the submarine arm is not discussed we should read this as the new doctrine, mated warheads with a ready to launch second strike within "minutes". Canister launched, indicates the warhead is also going to be embalmed in the missile for long term storage, not just the missile from the reply given. Notice the induction of missiles being talked about. AIII to AV. They are being inducted simultaneously, should reveal a lot. They are essentially the same, except the cost involved and ranges for the three. The AIII has one state which isn't all-composite. The AIV is all composite, with a 1.1 meter counterstrike function. The AV uses more composites than AIII. The path to AVI was revealed by the former DRDO chief in one of his final interviews before he retired. Essentially, the final missile. As indicated AVI is not a "priority". A.K. Anthony, indicated as much and asked DRDO to

"finish" what they already have and induct it before they think of "further" systems.



If you notice, it's very very sensible planning. What is the use of an ICBM if we can't physically project power beyond 7000kms? Sure we will have the ICBM building blocks ... and even some ICBMs tested with the 10k+ range under garb of AV tests, which at last count were extended to five or six tests. They may not be tested to full range, by using a ridiculous payload of 3 tonnes. A 3 tonne AVI will have a range "comparable" to the current A V.



The DRDO "inspired" leaks are just that. They are policy signals, to indicate we are ready to be a regional power but at present we don't fancy joining the bigger table. Not just yet. Why not? Ok we project power beyond 7k, what next? Is our economy as big as that to "require" such projection? Do we need to "influence" interests right now with those "revealed" ranges? Do we have a global positioning system with that reach? Do we have a blue navy just yet? Do we have enough ssbn and hunter killers and aircraft carriers to get to the next level on the table?



The Indian policy seems as always to be measured. We project as much as we absolutely have to. Our capability may let us stretch a bit more right now, but it isn't all "in place" just yet to go knocking on the door of the world and not get sanctioned.{Read global IRNSS, on-demand satellite launch, 12 nuclear submarines, at least 3 aircraft carriers, a strategic bomber ... etc } We were once excluded from the world market after a nuclear test, we are making sure we send the right signals, but the elephant is moving the post, slowly and methodically.



We have arrived as a rational nuclear player. An ostensible "second-strike" power bound to be a "second-strike" power because we are rational, and not because we are a second-rate power or lack the technology. Surendarji, espoused a doctrine for India, well that doctrine is officially been declared null and void, it's been mutated to almost a first-strike minus level. No first stikes is still the policy, because we say so and that is unlikely to change, everything else is mutable. Explains why the policy hasn't been made public yet. The components will take years to get in place. I am extremely impressed with our rational play so far. It's uncharacteristically non-Indian!!!

Interestingly, all it will take to get rid of our "second-strike" only doctrine is an executive change to our policy. However, like our earlier, everyone is equal when it comes to disarmament policy, this is our moral policy. No first strike cos we are different in morality, not capability. Nice touch.



I have seen some people and "western experts" raise questions about ELF antennas not indicating a second-strike within minutes policy or not going on deterrent patrols. They envision Indian submarines will behave just like the Chinese ones waiting in harbor forever until the cows come home and then move offshore with the missiles. Deterrent patrols will never be India's play is the popular western notion. They just don't get what ELF is. ELF transmissions are short and bitter from the bunkers. An ELF antenna is often 50 or so miles long!!! Every nuclear power has one, including USA, Russia, Britain and France. This is in addition to the VLF transmissions. ELF can transmit deeper. Russia for example uses a huge antenna which transmits at 8hz. ELF is old technology btw and we are placing it right next to our current VLF facility. This facility is well known as are the facilities in France which came into the limelight recently due to news articles, although it was known secret for ages and ages.



The newer technology in this area is laser communications where the research is ongoing. The current generation technology being "researched" or "used" is HAARP. Look at the objective of HAARP. One of the laid out objectives is to transmit at or near alven frequencies and low hz frequencies. So does india have any HAARP or HAARP like projects? Look at Tirupati for answers ... also check out the legal fiction on ownership when the answers from Tirupati are available... will provide a lot of details ...





The news article:



As Defence Minister A.K. Antony leaves on a 4-day official visit to China on Thursday, the first by a Defence Minister in seven years, new facts about the direction India's nuclear missile programme is taking could send out an unprecedented message. In details revealed for the first time in an exclusive interview to Headlines Today, the new chief of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) Dr Avinash Chander has revealed that one of his key mandates as the head of the country's military research complex, is to drastically reduce the time India will take for a potential nuclear counter-strike.



Unlike China, India has been typically timid about its strategic programmes. The DRDO chief's revelations make for a rare, bold message about the goings on within the country's most advanced weapons laboratories.



"In the second strike capability, the most important thing is how fast we can react. We are working on cannisterised systems that can launch from anywhere at anytime," said Dr Chander. "We are making much more agile, fast-reacting, stable missiles so response can be within minutes." India has a no first use policy for nuclear weapons, and its current response time for a retaliatory strike is classified. The DRDO chief's task is to whittle it down by a substantial degree to provide the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) with a literally 'anywhere-anytime' ability.



DRDO's new chief Dr Avinash Chander.





Dr Chander, formerly director with the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) in Hyderabad and renowned as the spearhead of the Agni family of missiles, was made chief of the DRDO last month.

India's current land-based nuclear weapon delivery systems include the 1,250-km range Agni-I, 2,000-km range Agni-II and 3,500-km range Agni-III. The DRDO chief has expressed confidence that 2 of India's two most ambitious nuclear missiles under test, the 4,000-km range Agni-IV and 6,000+ km range Agni-V, will both be inducted into the strategic arsenal within two years.



"We'll induct the Agni IV and V inducted in the next two years. It's the first time we will be inducting strategic missiles with such long ranges together. Agni III, IV and V are going to be the thrust areas. They give us the reach which we need, and are our highest priority now. Within two years we have to make sure that it happens," said Dr Chander.



Asked about whether India needed an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), with ranges in excess of 10,000-km like China's DF-31 and other in-development weapons, Dr Chander said his missile laboratories could develop and deploy an ICBM in as little as three-five years. "As we see today, we don't find the need for ranges more than 5,000-6,000 km. The technology building blocks required to build a longer range missile already exist. We are in a position to activate any such system at very short notice," said Dr Chander.



An Inter Continental Baliistic Missile (ICBM), the Agni V reportedly has a range of 5,500-5,800 kms.





Asked about how India's missile programme squared off against China's, he said, "Comparisons are odious, always difficult, and many times taken out of context. If you see at the capability level, our missiles, radars are comparable with the Chinese and other friends around us."



http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india...86691.html
  Reply
What is the ref to Tirupati?
  Reply
New Ind Express reports in article by HK Rout:



K4 to be tested in Sept 2013



Also gives dimensions for K-5.



Ignore the colorful prose.
  Reply
Excellent news reporting, with new concrete data, and chronology of important tests and milestones. Note first time in press stating a range of 500 km for the current version well over the 290 km range. And a smaller new version in development that is a whopping 3 meter shorter (5.4 m length instead of 8.4 m), and yet maintain the oft publicized range of 290 km onleee.



[size="3"]BrahMos will cement India’s place as missile powerhouse: The Asian Age[/size]

Quote: Sep 20, 2013 - [url="http://www.asianage.com/category/author/anil-bhat"]Anil Bhat[/url] |[url="http://www.asianage.com/category/source/age-correspondent"] Age Correspondent[/url]

India’s successful test-launch of the nuclear-capable, intercontinental, surface-to-surface ballistic missile, Agni-V on September 15, 2013, following the April 2012 launch of the 5,000 kms range version of the same Agni-5 by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is again a significant achievement. DRDO’s inventory of missiles coupled with the versions of BrahMos missiles places India in the top league with China, France, Russia, the US, Britain and Israel. While a feature on DRDO’s missile programme was published by this newspaper earlier, it is relevant to take stock of the BrahMos programme on its completion of 15 years.

On February 19, 2013, BrahMos Aerospace celebrated “Aardhik Diwas” — Partnership Day — to commemorate 15 years of missile making. “BrahMos is a formidable weapon system. It has offered more punch and strike capability for the three services. We owe it all to Dr A.S. Pillai, CEO & MD, BrahMos Aeropsace and Dr A.G. Leonov, director general, NPOM. It is because of the zeal and enthusiasm of Dr Pillai that we have reached this stage,” remarked Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne, Air Chief and Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. He added that the modified Su-30 Mk-I aircraft will soon be equipped with the BrahMos missile.



For 70 per cent of arms and equipment of India’s Armed Forces supplied by erstwhile USSR from the late 1960s onwards, its break-up in December 1991 resulted in major problems of spares for the various systems. Rediscovering their strategic value to each other and renewing the relationship with a major change from buyer-seller to partners in a joint venture, the first significant step was India and Russia signing an agreement in February 1998, to design, develop, manufacture and market BrahMos missiles. Coined as a combination of Brahmaputra and Moscva rivers, this is a versatile supersonic cruise missile system launchable from submarines, ships, aircraft or land, which was successfully accomplished by 2006. At speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8, it is the world’s fastest cruise missile, about three and a half times faster than the American subsonic Harpoon cruise missile.



BrahMos, with a maximum range of 290 km, can attack surface targets by flying as low as 10 metres over surface-level and can gain a speed of Mach 2.8. The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant, BrahMos A, can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fuelled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve. The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has more than 32 times the on-cruise kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile, although it carries only 3/5th the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighing twice as much, which suggests that the missile was designed with a different tactical role. Its Mach 2.8 speed means that it cannot be intercepted by some existing missile defence systems and its precision makes it lethal to water targets or those in a cluster.



BrahMos was first test-fired on June 12, 2001 from the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, in a vertical launch configuration. On June 14, 2004, it was fired from a mobile launcher. On March 5, 2008, the land attack version of the missile was fired from the destroyer INS Rajput and the missile hit and destroyed the selected target amidst a cluster of targets. The missile was vertically launched on December 18, 2008, from INS Ranvir. BrahMos I Block-I for the Army was successfully tested with new capabilities in the deserts of Rajasthan, at a test range near Pokharan in December 2004 and March 2007.



On March 4, 2009, BrahMos was tested again with a new navigation system, found successful and then test-fired yet again on March 29, 2009. For this test, the missile had to identify a building among a cluster of buildings in an urban environment. It successfully hit the intended target within two-and-a-half minutes of launch. What made a quantum difference was the new “seeker,” considered unique and capable of seeking targets, which may be insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings. India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced technology. After the third test, the Indian Army confirmed that the test was extremely successful and approved the missile. This marked the completion of development phase of BrahMos Block-II.

On March 21, 2010, BrahMos was test-fired and struck a free-floating ship piercing it above the waterline and destroying it completely. The test proved the missile’s manoeuvrability at supersonic speed before hitting a target, making India the first and only country to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile.



On September 5, 2010, BrahMos created a world record for being the first cruise missile to be tested at supersonic speeds in a steep-dive mode, achieving the Army’s requirement for land attacks with Block-II “advanced seeker software” along with “target discriminating capabilities.” BrahMos became the only supersonic cruise missile possessing advanced capability of selection of a particular land target amongst a group of targets, providing the user with an important edge of precision without collateral damage.



The Block III version of the missile was successfully test-fired on December 2, 2010, from ITR, Chandipur, with advanced guidance and upgraded software, incorporating high manoeuvres at multiple points and steep dive from high altitude. The steep dive capability of the Block III enables it to hit targets hidden behind a mountain range. It will be deployed in Arunachal Pradesh. It is capable of being launched from multiple platforms like submarines, ships, aircraft and land based Mobile Autonomous Launchers (MAL). On August 12, 2011, it was test-fired by ground forces and met all mission parameters. On March 4, 2012, it was test-fired by an Indian Army unit at the Pokharan range in Rajasthan to operationalise the second regiment of the weapon system in the Army. With this test, attended by top brass including vice chief Lt. Gen. Shri Krishna Singh and Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Lt. Gen. A.K. Chaudhary, the second BrahMos unit of the Indian Army became operational.



On October 7, 2012, the Indian Navy successfully test-fired BrahMos from the guided missile frigate INS Teg. This new highly manoeuvrable version was fitted with advanced satellite navigation systems turning it into a “super-rocket” capable of hitting targets over [size="4"]300–500 km[/size] from sea, land and air launchers, and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The submarine-launched variant of Brahmos was test fired successfully for the first time from a submerged pontoon near Visakhapatnam at the coast of Bay of Bengal on 20 March 2013. This was the first vertical launch of a supersonic missile from a submerged platform. The missile can be launched from a depth of 40 to 50 meters.



The purchase of over 200 air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles for the IAF was cleared by Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on October 19, 2012, at the cost of `6,000 crore ($1 billion). This includes funds for the integration and testing of the BrahMos on IAF’s Su-30MKI. Two Su-30MKI modified by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at its Nashik facility where they will also be integrated with the missile’s aerial launcher. The trial is expected to be conducted in early 2014. Also under development is a smaller variant of the air-launched BrahMos, to arm the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, future induction like the 126 Dassault Rafale, and the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K. A model of the new variant was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Aerospace. [color="#A0522D"]This smaller version is three metres shorter than the present missile will also have a range of 290 km[/color]. The Sukhoi SU-30MKI will carry three missiles while other combat aircraft will carry one each.



BrahMos is reportedly attempting a hypersonic Mach 8 version of the missile, BrahMos II, the first ever hypersonic cruise missile, expected to be ready soon. Former President of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has reportedly recommended to BrahMos Aerospace to develop an advanced hypersonic version of the BrahMos cruise missile to maintain India’s lead in the field. He said that such a version, which will be able to deliver its payload and return to base and be re-useable, is needed. This would turn BrahMos into an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.



What needs to be emphasised yet again is that no matter how many or how sophisticated missile systems India has, with the threats it faces, its depleted arsenal of conventional weapons like battle tanks, artillery guns and some other weapons and equipment must urgently be modernized and refurbished enough to take on not one, but two intransigent adversaries very friendly with each other, over its vast disputed and undisputed borders.







  Reply
Quote:Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.



“It saw several technological enhancements and we had to redesign the entire system, use maraging steel and composite motor rocket,” she said.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-...191824.ece



@ Arun_S sir, is it possible that with reduce weight, range will be extended for A3?
  Reply
[quote name='sayare' date='24 October 2013 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1382554122' post='116873']

[url="http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/agniv-vital-tessy-thomas/article5191824.ece"]http://www.thehindu....icle5191824.ece[/url]



@ Arun_S sir, is it possible that with reduce weight, range will be extended for A3?

[/quote]



Yes.

For payload to range tradeoff for A-III please see my article in Indian Defense Review.

[url="http://www.indiandefencereview.com/author/arunsvishwakarma/"]http://www.indiandefencereview.com/author/arunsvishwakarma/[/url]



Sorry for replying so late.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)