Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Chain Smoker

Well-Known member
Mar 2, 2020
744
593
india
Where did you get that ? I thought the 450km version was still doing Mach 3-3.5. New P-15s ? Vizags ?

We will continue relations with the Russian no doubt. But I think the scope of it will be limited going forward.

DEWs are mostly unproven so using them in tandem with conventional guns might be a better option than outright replacement. Bundling DEWs with guns might not be feasible. Laser DEWs are susceptible to damage from gun vibrations.

Kolkata class has adequate LR-AD missiles. They could use some point defence missiles though.

That's right, we don't know the design of the NGMV yet. But given the NGMV will carry Nirbhay/Brahmos class missiles weapon specific spaces are a must. Let's see what CSL comes up with.

Couldn't you just have cannisters of different heights for AD missiles. They can have the same length & breadth. So the missiles can be quad packed but the cannister wont take up as much space.

What is the big hurdle with increasing beam length ?

The NGD/P-18 class is supposed to be 13000 tons in displacement as opposed to the P-15A/B which are ~7400-8200 tons. So we can assume everything about the NGD/P-18 to be much larger. The NGF will probably end up using the same hull as the NGD, so.....

How a 13000 ton ship is called a destroyer & not a battlecruiser is beyond me.

Seen it. Uses a similar stepped pedestal set up on the froe deck. Interestingly the larger missiles are below & the SAMs are on top of the pedestal.

They are not the only one. ISRO's VSSC has also made significant contributions.

At this point I think its more or less design consultancy. We tested some designs in Russian wind tunnels. With our own hypersonic wind tunnels coming up recently I don't think we need to have anything tested abroad. The initiation of 2 separate cruise missile projects based on the HSTDV's scramjet engine should tell you about the state of scramjet engine development.
Well the new scramjet engine being made is complete new and for long duration flights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
Well the new scramjet engine being made is complete new and for long duration flights.
I think the new design is this one. But we will see I guess.
1630058104965.png


More on the design: Indian Hypersonic Propulsion Developments
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Where did you get that ? I thought the 450km version was still doing Mach 3-3.5. New P-15s ? Vizags ?

The clues are unclear. I recall reading an interview by Maksichev where he said there will be an additional gain of 50Km to the missile when it's upgraded to mach 4.5.

He pointed out the range increase of 50Km will come with a speed increase. But someone else had pointed out there will be a range increase due to a new fuel injector system.

We will come to hypersound via an increase in range. We have already confirmed 400 kilometres, in order to increase the range to 500, it is needed to increase the speed. Now the missile flies at speeds of 2.8 mach. We will achieve the speed of hypersound through modernization, it is more than 4.5 mach," Alexander Maksichev, the managing co-director of the BrahMos Aerospace company, told Sputnik in April this year.

The new variant of the radar-guided missile will carry the same amount of fuel as the earlier versions, but will be fitted with an enhanced computer-controlled injector system that will better regulate the flow of fuel into the engine’s combustor, thus greatly improving efficiency, the source added.

So there are two numbers thrown around. One is the upgrade from 400 to 450Km, which was tested in 2017, the other is to 500Km. There's nothing definite without them actually coming out and saying it, but the clues are there.

Right now it's unclear if the mach 4.5 version will be the upgrade to 450Km or the upgrade to 500Km. Or if both these missiles are actually the same. It's likely the 450Km version has had its speed increased to mach 3.5 along with a new fuel injector whereas the 500Km version will get its range boost with the speed upgrade to 500Km.

The Vizags, yes, are getting the a "new" version of the missile.

Laser DEWs are susceptible to damage from gun vibrations.

They will eventually take care of it, since it's expected that such weapons will be carried on SPADGMS, ICVs, tanks etc.

Kolkata class has adequate LR-AD missiles. They could use some point defence missiles though.

I find it weird that they haven't yet gone for it. Or they believe Barak is plenty on its own.

Couldn't you just have cannisters of different heights for AD missiles. They can have the same length & breadth. So the missiles can be quad packed but the cannister wont take up as much space.

Sure, you can have slightly different sizes, like on the Mk41 with the strike and tactical modules.
1603479538_screenshot_20201023-2156192.png


Even with 2 sizes, you don't really save space.

Otoh, Slyver takes it to a whole new level with 4 different sizes.
Sylver_Launching_System_-_Types_of_Missiles.gif


But with Slyver, you end up with the same weapon-specific spaces like we have on other ships. Except that there's some level of commonality in internal systems which makes it slightly easier to maintain it. However, in our case, we will end up with a massive size difference, like the one between Brahmos and Astra. The only answer is to go for larger ship designs.

What is the big hurdle with increasing beam length ?

It was a problem earlier, but it's nothing today. We just gotta design a new ship with a bigger beam instead of modernising the same design over and over again and call it A, B, C etc. Hence the need to do what the Chinese did with their Type 055 and go for a whole new family of ships.

The NGD/P-18 class is supposed to be 13000 tons in displacement as opposed to the P-15A/B which are ~7400-8200 tons. So we can assume everything about the NGD/P-18 to be much larger. The NGF will probably end up using the same hull as the NGD, so.....

Yeah, it's finally going to take us to global standards.

How a 13000 ton ship is called a destroyer & not a battlecruiser is beyond me.

Interesting story there.

Cruiser and battlecruiser were for specific ship classes in the post-Dreadnought era, long before guided missiles became the norm. These type of ships had battleship level firepower, but with significantly lesser armour. A battlecruiser was a downgraded battleship and a cruiser was simply a much smaller battleship. A destroyer was smaller than a cruiser and it's job was to protect the battleships and battlecruisers, while cruisers performed independent missions where a battleship wasn't necessary.

During the Cold War, the Americans had these ships called frigates, and the Soviets had these ships called cruisers. Both were the same and performed the same missions. But due to the difference in designations, there was a fictional "cruiser gap" created in the minds of politicians and bureaucrats since the American cruiser was different from the Soviet cruiser. In 1975, the USN reclassified all ships and Ticonderoga was supposed to be designated a GM destroyer with a DDG designation. But when it went in for approval, the Congress rejected it because there was already too many "destroyers". So the USN simply changed the designation to CG, as GM cruiser, instead for approval. But it performed the same role as a destroyer, ie protecting larger ships like carriers and LHDs.

So the term "cruiser" is simply a Cold War era relic used for political purposes by the USN.

The Soviets simply named their biggest destroyer "battlecruiser" and their smaller destroyer as "cruiser". This was also political, since the Soviets did not have an aircraft carrier similar in class to the Americans. So this was their attempt to stand out.

Both are slowly moving to more modern designations used by Europe, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Zumwalt class destroyer, Lider class destroyer etc, the USN adopting Europeans standards for frigates and so on. They did attempt more politics with the CG designation, but were later shot down since they wanted to modify the Zumwalt design and ask for more ships. They were told to use the AB class instead, so status quo for them.

The Americans and Russians have to change their designations, we are doing it right.

Seen it. Uses a similar stepped pedestal set up on the froe deck. Interestingly the larger missiles are below & the SAMs are on top of the pedestal.

The simple reason being the bigger missiles need to be kept away from the bridge because the separation is too small, considering the size of the ship. Plus the space below can be used.

We will continue relations with the Russian no doubt. But I think the scope of it will be limited going forward.

This is a separate topic in itself, but I don't think the Russians are in a very comfortable position with respect to China so they will want to keep engaging with us. Otoh, we want to reduce imports from all sources, not just Russia. But we are going to depend on fighter jet imports for a very long time and Russia is crucial if we are to maintain higher capabilities, or we will only get shafted by western countries by chasing behind the same technologies from them. After all, Russia is one of the main reasons why the Europeans are willing to share engine tech with us for AMCA. "Share tech or we go to Russia" is the best threat we've got. So there's at least a 10-year window for new deals with Russia, including Brahmos-2, before we become self-sufficient enough to reject imports from all sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
They will eventually take care of it, since it's expected that such weapons will be carried on SPADGMS, ICVs, tanks etc.
That's true.
I find it weird that they haven't yet gone for it. Or they believe Barak is plenty on its own.
Would be a waste to use B8s for everything. Even if it is capable of bath LR-AD & point defence role.
However, in our case, we will end up with a massive size difference, like the one between Brahmos and Astra. The only answer is to go for larger ship designs.
We will probably end up going for cannisters of 2 or 3 different lengths. I would also be alright if DRDO has a UVLM for all AD missiles & a separate UVLM for offensive missiles. Although given the variety of sizes of the missiles available & upcoming, such a classification won't be practical.
It was a problem earlier, but it's nothing today. We just gotta design a new ship with a bigger beam instead of modernising the same design over and over again and call it A, B, C etc. Hence the need to do what the Chinese did with their Type 055 and go for a whole new family of ships.
The Delhi & Kolkata class destroyers pretty much have the same hull. There is a bit of hull re-design on the Vizag class though with repositioned sonars & roll control, loosing the bulbous bow etc.

I hope they go for a completely new hull design with the P-18 class.
Interesting story there.

Cruiser and battlecruiser were for specific ship classes in the post-Dreadnought era, long before guided missiles became the norm. These type of ships had battleship level firepower, but with significantly lesser armour. A battlecruiser was a downgraded battleship and a cruiser was simply a much smaller battleship. A destroyer was smaller than a cruiser and it's job was to protect the battleships and battlecruisers, while cruisers performed independent missions where a battleship wasn't necessary.

During the Cold War, the Americans had these ships called frigates, and the Soviets had these ships called cruisers. Both were the same and performed the same missions. But due to the difference in designations, there was a fictional "cruiser gap" created in the minds of politicians and bureaucrats since the American cruiser was different from the Soviet cruiser. In 1975, the USN reclassified all ships and Ticonderoga was supposed to be designated a GM destroyer with a DDG designation. But when it went in for approval, the Congress rejected it because there was already too many "destroyers". So the USN simply changed the designation to CG, as GM cruiser, instead for approval. But it performed the same role as a destroyer, ie protecting larger ships like carriers and LHDs.

So the term "cruiser" is simply a Cold War era relic used for political purposes by the USN.

The Soviets simply named their biggest destroyer "battlecruiser" and their smaller destroyer as "cruiser". This was also political, since the Soviets did not have an aircraft carrier similar in class to the Americans. So this was their attempt to stand out.

Both are slowly moving to more modern designations used by Europe, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Zumwalt class destroyer, Lider class destroyer etc, the USN adopting Europeans standards for frigates and so on. They did attempt more politics with the CG designation, but were later shot down since they wanted to modify the Zumwalt design and ask for more ships. They were told to use the AB class instead, so status quo for them.

The Americans and Russians have to change their designations, we are doing it right.
Very interesting story. I did not know it was a political designation.
This is a separate topic in itself, but I don't think the Russians are in a very comfortable position with respect to China so they will want to keep engaging with us. Otoh, we want to reduce imports from all sources, not just Russia. But we are going to depend on fighter jet imports for a very long time and Russia is crucial if we are to maintain higher capabilities, or we will only get shafted by western countries by chasing behind the same technologies from them. After all, Russia is one of the main reasons why the Europeans are willing to share engine tech with us for AMCA. "Share tech or we go to Russia" is the best threat we've got. So there's at least a 10-year window for new deals with Russia, including Brahmos-2, before we become self-sufficient enough to reject imports from all sources.
Russia may be uncomfortable with China but they are more uncomfortable with the US. Enemy of my enemy & all that. Our conflicts with China will only increase & with it our relationship with Russia will continue to slip. Though I doubt we will ever be adversarial with the Russians. The India-Russia relation will become like our relation with Germany. Transactional, buy & sell, nothing more nothing less.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Would be a waste to use B8s for everything. Even if it is capable of bath LR-AD & point defence role.

They will have to integrate the VL-SRSAM with the MFSTAR for it to work out. I don't see us going for a gun-missile system like the Pantsir-ME after all, even one of Indian make.

We will probably end up going for cannisters of 2 or 3 different lengths. I would also be alright if DRDO has a UVLM for all AD missiles & a separate UVLM for offensive missiles. Although given the variety of sizes of the missiles available & upcoming, such a classification won't be practical.

For now, I'll be happy if they make UVLMs for the entire Brahmos family, LR-LACM, SMART and XRSAM.

The Delhi & Kolkata class destroyers pretty much have the same hull. There is a bit of hull re-design on the Vizag class though with repositioned sonars & roll control, loosing the bulbous bow etc.

I hope they go for a completely new hull design with the P-18 class.

If they are looking for 13000T, then it's going to have to be a new design.

Russia may be uncomfortable with China but they are more uncomfortable with the US. Enemy of my enemy & all that. Our conflicts with China will only increase & with it our relationship with Russia will continue to slip. Though I doubt we will ever be adversarial with the Russians. The India-Russia relation will become like our relation with Germany. Transactional, buy & sell, nothing more nothing less.

We can't think of ourselves as having to sacrifice relations with one to have one with another. It's fine to do lip service for now, as we are doing right now, but we need to do our own thing once we get the economic heft necessary to become our own side. Russia is going to transition from an emerging market into a developed country over the next 15 years, and we will be using a lot of Russian hardware all the way through to 2040. So I don't think we can choose one over the other, we are going to have to fight for our own interests. After all, one provides money, the other provides security, and we can't sacrifice either one.

The best supplier is a country like France or Israel, that do not have their hats in the superpower ring. So we need to reduce dependency on anyone else that's too big, including both the US and Russia. We will have to learn to balance our relations between the two for now. The long term goal is obviously indigenisation, but that's at least 20 years away. Frankly, we will get rich before we fully indigenise.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
They will have to integrate the VL-SRSAM with the MFSTAR for it to work out. I don't see us going for a gun-missile system like the Pantsir-ME after all, even one of Indian make.
The integration of VL-SRSAM to MF-STAR shouldn't be a huge problem. Pantsir or not we need a better CIWS.
For now, I'll be happy if they make UVLMs for the entire Brahmos family, LR-LACM, SMART and XRSAM.
The UVLM firstly for the largest naval missiles, then maybe smaller munitions ? The module size will then depend on the largest of these missiles.

The original Shaurya tested in 2008 was 10m in length, 0.7m in dia & 6.2 tons in weight. That is the largest & heaviest missile the Navy had until the K4 came along. The Brahmos in comparison is 8.4 m in length, 0.6 m in dia & 3 tons in weight. The newer version of Shaurya is smaller, lighter & has a range of 800 kms. We have no numbers on the new version but if DRDO can cut it down to Brahmos' size then we are set.

The SMART is based on that new version of Shaurya. The SMART will definitely be used by surface ships. These missiles: Brahmos, SMART, the new version of Shaurya will be the largest missiles the UVLMs can launch.
We can't think of ourselves as having to sacrifice relations with one to have one with another. It's fine to do lip service for now, as we are doing right now, but we need to do our own thing once we get the economic heft necessary to become our own side. Russia is going to transition from an emerging market into a developed country over the next 15 years, and we will be using a lot of Russian hardware all the way through to 2040. So I don't think we can choose one over the other, we are going to have to fight for our own interests. After all, one provides money, the other provides security, and we can't sacrifice either one.
I am not saying we have to side with the West or with Russia. I am saying our security need can be met through a transactional relationship with Russia. The rest of what we need, we must do it ourselves.

Russia may become a developed economy in the next 15 years but I don't think they will catch up to us in GDP(Nominal or PPP) just like we won't catch up to them in per capita income. Currently, India's GDP(Nominal) is less than twice Russia's GDP(Nominal), in PPP terms its more than twice. I can only see that gap increasing. The economic point is moot.

There isn't a great deal of people-to-people relations either. There is a language barrier, there is a cultural barrier & then there is Russian weather. Thus we may continue using Russian hardware through 2100, they will always be a significant player in the defence arena. But their influence & importance to us will only continue to wean away with time.

So we will have/are having a relationship with an ever diverging geopolitical priorities & goals, negligible people to people connect, miniscule trade. The result is a transactional relationship driven by geopolitical tides & waning nostalgia.
The best supplier is a country like France or Israel, that do not have their hats in the superpower ring. So we need to reduce dependency on anyone else that's too big, including both the US and Russia. We will have to learn to balance our relations between the two for now. The long term goal is obviously indigenisation, but that's at least 20 years away. Frankly, we will get rich before we fully indigenise.
Frankly for indigenisation to reach 100% we would need to get sanctioned again. Perhaps the CAASTA can help. We will always import something or other no matter how good our capabilities & industry gets. The more realistic goal would be to stop imports of the critical items like tanks, fighters, helos, ships, engines et al.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
The integration of VL-SRSAM to MF-STAR shouldn't be a huge problem. Pantsir or not we need a better CIWS.

Our current CIWS is fine though. It's pretty good against most types of targets, and I don't think there's any gun CIWS that can stop Brahmos or higher anyway, need EM guns for that.

The UVLM firstly for the largest naval missiles, then maybe smaller munitions ? The module size will then depend on the largest of these missiles.

The original Shaurya tested in 2008 was 10m in length, 0.7m in dia & 6.2 tons in weight. That is the largest & heaviest missile the Navy had until the K4 came along. The Brahmos in comparison is 8.4 m in length, 0.6 m in dia & 3 tons in weight. The newer version of Shaurya is smaller, lighter & has a range of 800 kms. We have no numbers on the new version but if DRDO can cut it down to Brahmos' size then we are set.

The SMART is based on that new version of Shaurya. The SMART will definitely be used by surface ships. These missiles: Brahmos, SMART, the new version of Shaurya will be the largest missiles the UVLMs can launch.

How much do we know about the relationship between the two missiles?

I am not saying we have to side with the West or with Russia. I am saying our security need can be met through a transactional relationship with Russia. The rest of what we need, we must do it ourselves.

Russia may become a developed economy in the next 15 years but I don't think they will catch up to us in GDP(Nominal or PPP) just like we won't catch up to them in per capita income. Currently, India's GDP(Nominal) is less than twice Russia's GDP(Nominal), in PPP terms its more than twice. I can only see that gap increasing. The economic point is moot.

There isn't a great deal of people-to-people relations either. There is a language barrier, there is a cultural barrier & then there is Russian weather. Thus we may continue using Russian hardware through 2100, they will always be a significant player in the defence arena. But their influence & importance to us will only continue to wean away with time.

So we will have/are having a relationship with an ever diverging geopolitical priorities & goals, negligible people to people connect, miniscule trade. The result is a transactional relationship driven by geopolitical tides & waning nostalgia.

The Russians are currently richer than we are. Their USD GDP figure doesn't give the whole picture since their currency has weakened. But their Su-30s and 35s now cost less than $25M to the Russians. The Su-57 costs only $30-35M or so. So, even though their defence budget is $42B, from India's perspective it's actually $70-80B. And more than 70% of their budget goes into capital purchases. This translates into their economy too. So while imports has become very expensive in Russia, their exports have become highly profitable with ridiculously high margins. Before sanctions hit, a barrel of oil that cost $60 used to give them 2100 rubles, now it gives them 4300 rubles. They are getting far more out of their dollars than we are. Simply put, their current USD GDP figure is not reflective of their actual economic strength.

Furthermore, we need their help in order to maintain connectivity with Central Asia. And once China begins making moves against Russia over the next decade, they are going to have to make FP changes of their own.

Okay, the point I'm trying to make is, with Russia, right now we seem to be butting heads on some issues, and this could last quite some time. We are retaliating by reducing purchases from them. However we are still dependent on them. But a decade down the line, Russia and India will automatically get closer due to China. So we will be a bit less dependent on them at that point in time, but our relations will get better due to the need to counter China anyway. Which is why I don't believe we need to look at Russia through the American lens. As long as we keep doing our own thing, whether our relationship is transactional or not, things will fall in place once a decade passes and we also join the adults table. We need to take care of our own interests first.

Frankly for indigenisation to reach 100% we would need to get sanctioned again. Perhaps the CAASTA can help. We will always import something or other no matter how good our capabilities & industry gets. The more realistic goal would be to stop imports of the critical items like tanks, fighters, helos, ships, engines et al.

Actually, the opposite. When it comes to the small stuff, we will have indigenised completely. It's only the big ticket stuff that will continue seeing imports, but these will come in as stopgaps to make up for delays in indigenisation or emergency purchases for quick induction of a brand new capability rather than large scale buys of the yesteryears. But we are still going to have to depend on imports for many things for a very long time, like medium and heavy transports, heavy helicopters, platforms for force multipliers etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
Our current CIWS is fine though. It's pretty good against most types of targets, and I don't think there's any gun CIWS that can stop Brahmos or higher anyway, need EM guns for that.
We should at least try and get a twin cannon set up. There are plenty of options available with the Russians. AK-630 can only go so far.
How much do we know about the relationship between the two missiles?
Which missiles ? The Shaurya & SMART ? We don't have a photo of the newer Shaurya yet, so let's use the older version for comparison.

The airframe of the SMART is a derivative of the Shaurya. From the body to the control surfaces.
Shaurya (2008):
1630212287143.png

Notice the circular guides just above the fins ? These are typical of missiles that fire from tightly packed cannister. SMART has them too. You can see them above the fins & on the mid body. The only difference are the fins. The early Shaurya had a truncated trapezoidal fin followed by a cropped delta fin set up. The SMART has a true trapezoidal fin followed by a cropped delta fin set up.
SMART:
sm (1).jpg

Of course the K-15/BO5 is an exact copy of the Shaurya. No changes at all.
K-15 SLBM:
1630212247981.png

The launchers of the Shaurya & SMART are the same. The truck, the erector, hydraulics is all the same.
Shaurya launcher:
1630211902520.png

SMART launcher:
1630211945392.png

The gas generator at the bottom of the SMART's cannister is more pronounced than the one on the early Shaurya. These design differences maybe directly from the newer Shaurya. We don't know as there is no picture of that yet.

There is of course the submerged launcher for the K-15 that encases the whole missile. No front end poking out. There is a man at the back of the launcher for scale. This launcher obviously supports cold launch like the other cannisters & is already in use of the Navy.
1630212196270.png

This cannister could serve as a starting point for the UVLM. Make a launch cannister for the new Shaurya using this as a reference. Of course you have to reduce gas pressure & the gas can size as we are not doing a submerged launch. Then try to fire the Brahmos & SMART from that launcher. The SMART will definitely launch, if the Brahmos can launch too then the biggest hurdle is crossed.
The Russians are currently richer than we are. Their USD GDP figure doesn't give the whole picture since their currency has weakened. But their Su-30s and 35s now cost less than $25M to the Russians. The Su-57 costs only $30-35M or so. So, even though their defence budget is $42B, from India's perspective it's actually $70-80B. And more than 70% of their budget goes into capital purchases. This translates into their economy too. So while imports has become very expensive in Russia, their exports have become highly profitable with ridiculously high margins. Before sanctions hit, a barrel of oil that cost $60 used to give them 2100 rubles, now it gives them 4300 rubles. They are getting far more out of their dollars than we are. Simply put, their current USD GDP figure is not reflective of their actual economic strength.
You could make a similar case for us. Our currency is weakened too. Though we do it ourselves to boost exports. And being dependent on oil imports don't help. On the positive side we do have a more diversified export basket & a huge domestic market. The USD figures aren't reflective of their economic strength. True.

The USD figures aren't reflective of our economic strength either. Overall I think my point still stands.
Furthermore, we need their help in order to maintain connectivity with Central Asia
That's true.
And once China begins making moves against Russia over the next decade, they are going to have to make FP changes of their own.
What moves ? Siberia ? I don't understand what's the deal with Siberia is in the context of Russia-China relations, but I guess China wants some of Russia's land. What is new here ?
Okay, the point I'm trying to make is, with Russia, right now we seem to be butting heads on some issues, and this could last quite some time. We are retaliating by reducing purchases from them. However we are still dependent on them. But a decade down the line, Russia and India will automatically get closer due to China. So we will be a bit less dependent on them at that point in time, but our relations will get better due to the need to counter China anyway. Which is why I don't believe we need to look at Russia through the American lens. As long as we keep doing our own thing, whether our relationship is transactional or not, things will fall in place once a decade passes and we also join the adults table. We need to take care of our own interests first.
It seems you & I broadly agree on the current state of affairs. But our views differ on the future. Mostly because you see the Russia-China relations turning sour due to some sort of trouble created by the Chinese. That relationship is described as "uncomfortable" by some FP analysts. Though they will stick together for their mutual desire to counter the USA. China is the also the largest market for Russia. What trouble could the Chinese initiate that would make Russia ignore all the convergences of interests & turn on China ? Territorial conquest ? The Chinese do have a habit of that.

That will create problems alright. But I doubt that the Russians would be troubled enough to do a 180 deg turn. At best there will be some "re-balancing" probably through the INST corridor. Russia's desire to counter the US lead them to ignore decades of blatant IPR violations of many Russian military tech by China. This too shall pass.

I thought we were discussing missiles. Where did this foreign policy stuff come from !?!?
Actually, the opposite. When it comes to the small stuff, we will have indigenised completely. It's only the big ticket stuff that will continue seeing imports, but these will come in as stopgaps to make up for delays in indigenisation or emergency purchases for quick induction of a brand new capability rather than large scale buys of the yesteryears. But we are still going to have to depend on imports for many things for a very long time, like medium and heavy transports, heavy helicopters, platforms for force multipliers etc.
Given our past experience I refuse to believe we will make proper rifles before we make airborne refuelers, transport aircrafts, medium & heavy helos, AWACS etc.

We get good at what we focus on. That's how we can make ASATs but not one decent rifle. I don't think there will be much change in that. Infantry will continue getting the short end of the stick. The focus will remain mostly in major weapons be that tactical or strategic.

Guns ? Who needs guns ? We have missiles, bombs, ships, nukes. Muhuhahahahaha !!!
[This is how I imagine our military planners think. Ironically most of them are from the Army.]
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
We should at least try and get a twin cannon set up. There are plenty of options available with the Russians. AK-630 can only go so far.

The biggest Chinese threat at sea is the YJ-18, which manages up to mach 3 in the terminal phase. Neither the single cannon nor the twin cannon are effective against such speeds, whereas the AK-630 is very effective against Harpoon and C-803. So it doesn't make sense to make the upgrade to the twin-cannon versions.

Which missiles ? The Shaurya & SMART ? We don't have a photo of the newer Shaurya yet, so let's use the older version for comparison.

The airframe of the SMART is a derivative of the Shaurya. From the body to the control surfaces.
Shaurya (2008):
View attachment 20702
Notice the circular guides just above the fins ? These are typical of missiles that fire from tightly packed cannister. SMART has them too. You can see them above the fins & on the mid body. The only difference are the fins. The early Shaurya had a truncated trapezoidal fin followed by a cropped delta fin set up. The SMART has a true trapezoidal fin followed by a cropped delta fin set up.
SMART:
View attachment 20703
Of course the K-15/BO5 is an exact copy of the Shaurya. No changes at all.
K-15 SLBM:
View attachment 20701
The launchers of the Shaurya & SMART are the same. The truck, the erector, hydraulics is all the same.
Shaurya launcher:
View attachment 20698
SMART launcher:
View attachment 20699
The gas generator at the bottom of the SMART's cannister is more pronounced than the one on the early Shaurya. These design differences maybe directly from the newer Shaurya. We don't know as there is no picture of that yet.

There is of course the submerged launcher for the K-15 that encases the whole missile. No front end poking out. There is a man at the back of the launcher for scale. This launcher obviously supports cold launch like the other cannisters & is already in use of the Navy.
View attachment 20700
This cannister could serve as a starting point for the UVLM. Make a launch cannister for the new Shaurya using this as a reference. Of course you have to reduce gas pressure & the gas can size as we are not doing a submerged launch. Then try to fire the Brahmos & SMART from that launcher. The SMART will definitely launch, if the Brahmos can launch too then the biggest hurdle is crossed.

Yeah, I believe you had posted this before as well. Do we know what's going to slow down the SMART before the torpedo is released?

You could make a similar case for us. Our currency is weakened too. Though we do it ourselves to boost exports. And being dependent on oil imports don't help. On the positive side we do have a more diversified export basket & a huge domestic market. The USD figures aren't reflective of their economic strength. True.

It doesn't reflect in the price of our products. For them it does. For example, the Su-57 costs less than $35M, but the LCA Mk1A costs $42M. With a $30B capital budget, they can afford to buy a lot more advanced Su-57s than we can LCAs. The same thing translates into every weapon type they have. Our exchange rate weakened because of unsound economic policies, whereas the Russians were sanctioned, so they weakened their currency in order to earn more from exports. Even with the halving of the GDP, the Russians still remain the same threat they posed before.

What moves ? Siberia ? I don't understand what's the deal with Siberia is in the context of Russia-China relations, but I guess China wants some of Russia's land. What is new here ?

Their relations will sour and the Russians will start seeing things from India's perspective. The Chinese changing sides is pretty much a norm ever since they were created.

I thought we were discussing missiles. Where did this foreign policy stuff come from !?!?

We were talking about reducing imports from Russia, especially cutting down the Brahmos 2 program. You said we have to do everything ourselves, I'm only pointing out that, that's going to take at least 20 years in aerospace. And that most of the focus towards imports from Russia until then will be for high end tech, so Brahmos 2, Su-57/Mig-41, IL-276/476 etc. The FGFA lost its crown, so Brahmos-2 will be the Indo-Russia flagship project and it will be the gateway necessary to bring in other high end tech the Russians will develop until our aerospace industry matures over the next 20 years.

So I brought in Russian FP future because I wanna point out that we won't abandon Russia simply because the US doesn't like them, when it's obvious we need tech that the US won't provide on their own unless Russia is offering India a competing product. Our relationship with Russia is one of our strongest hands when it comes to dealing with the US.

Given our past experience I refuse to believe we will make proper rifles before we make airborne refuelers, transport aircrafts, medium & heavy helos, AWACS etc.

We get good at what we focus on. That's how we can make ASATs but not one decent rifle. I don't think there will be much change in that. Infantry will continue getting the short end of the stick. The focus will remain mostly in major weapons be that tactical or strategic.

Guns ? Who needs guns ? We have missiles, bombs, ships, nukes. Muhuhahahahaha !!!
[This is how I imagine our military planners think. Ironically most of them are from the Army.]

From the army's perspective that's fine. Indigenisation is more about actual physical control over technologies rather than who actually holds the IP. For example, the AK-203 will come with full ToT and no royalty. In exchange, the army has increased their direct imports from 100,000 to 170,000. However in the long run we will be able to make as many rifles as we want regardless of Russian interference. Similarly, even though the Rafale is an imported aircraft, they are offering 100% ToT on the engine and airframe, which allows us to fly the aircraft without problems even if we are sanctioned. For national security reasons, IP can be ignored. As long as we actually have physical control over the tech, it's practically indigenous tech. Otoh, a grounded LCA is much more indigenous than a flying LCA, but less useful than a paperweight.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
The biggest Chinese threat at sea is the YJ-18, which manages up to mach 3 in the terminal phase.
Barak-8 for supersonic AShMs. Remember the B-8 was developed to counter the Yakhont.
Neither the single cannon nor the twin cannon are effective against such speeds, whereas the AK-630 is very effective against Harpoon and C-803. So it doesn't make sense to make the upgrade to the twin-cannon versions.
I am worried about salvo firing. I know the AK-630 is effective. But when facing a salvo of missiles how much time is needed to shoot down a threat also matters. These engagement times can be reduced with a twin cannon set up or an augmented set up comprising of cannons & missiles.

Given the limited number of SAMs we carry using SAMs for all short range engagements would be a waste.
Yeah, I believe you had posted this before as well.
Did I ? I must have forgotten.
Do we know what's going to slow down the SMART before the torpedo is released?
Most probably a combination of glider and small drag chutes. Remember the IIT-K project on glider assisted torpedo ?
It doesn't reflect in the price of our products. For them it does. For example, the Su-57 costs less than $35M, but the LCA Mk1A costs $42M. With a $30B capital budget, they can afford to buy a lot more advanced Su-57s than we can LCAs.
I don't understand economics. Explain this part to me.

Surely the Russians are not using USD to but their own weapons. They are using Rubles. Like we don't use UAD to buy Tejas, we use INR. If we can't use UAD values to compare GDP of 2 countries, why are we using USD to compare prices of different products in different countries ?

Shouldn't the price depend on scales of production. Which the Russians have & we don't yet ?
Even with the halving of the GDP, the Russians still remain the same threat they posed before.
Russia is not unique here. Pakistan is more of less the same.
Their relations will sour and the Russians will start seeing things from India's perspective. The Chinese changing sides is pretty much a norm ever since they were created.
Makes no sense. Russia is the only Chinese partner that is capable. Everybody else is a satellite. There is zero sense in ruining your relationship with the closest thing you have to a friend over some territory. I don't see this happening.
The FGFA lost its crown, so Brahmos-2 will be the Indo-Russia flagship project and it will be the gateway necessary to bring in other high end tech the Russians will develop until our aerospace industry matures over the next 20 years.
The FGFA is in some ways a perfect case of what will probably happen to most Indo-Russian projects in the future. A lot of hype that ends in disappointment.

Which brings me to my original point that the Brahmos-2 will probably go the FGFA way.
From the army's perspective that's fine. Indigenisation is more about actual physical control over technologies rather than who actually holds the IP. For example, the AK-203 will come with full ToT and no royalty. In exchange, the army has increased their direct imports from 100,000 to 170,000. However in the long run we will be able to make as many rifles as we want regardless of Russian interference.
OFB had the designs of the Bofors Haubits FH77 since the late 1980s, a relic of the arms deal that sunk Rajiv Gandhi's govt. OFB sat on those designs for decades until the Indian Army's Field Artillery Rationalization Program (FARP) came up in early 2000s. Then the OFB scurried off to use those old F77 designs to develop a modernized version of the same. That's how the Dhanush artillery was born.

In 2015 the 1st Dhanush artillery gun was manufactured, 2 decades after OFB acquired those designs. In 2018, OFB sold 155mm gun's barrel in 39, 45 & 52 calibers to the Bofors. The Swedish company tested those barrels & were apparently impressed by it. In 2019 Bofors ordered OFB to deliver breaches & locking mechanisms of those barrels. OFB is exporting to Bofors, the world works in funny ways.

The point of this story is that the OFB is not as incompetent as we think & the Army is not as competent as we think. OFB sitting on those designs for decades is shameful, the Army twiddling their thumbs as the number of artillery units we have dwindled is far worse. I expect the exact same thing to happen with the Ak deal. ToT or not the Army will be content with what they have for now. Thus the OFB will sit on those designs again, they won't try to make new guns on their own. Not in their DNA. Few years later when there is another emergency requirement the Army will sign another deal with the Russians with full ToT.

And the cycle will continue.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Barak-8 for supersonic AShMs. Remember the B-8 was developed to counter the Yakhont.

Yeah. VL-SRSAM also has the same requirement.

I am worried about salvo firing. I know the AK-630 is effective. But when facing a salvo of missiles how much time is needed to shoot down a threat also matters. These engagement times can be reduced with a twin cannon set up or an augmented set up comprising of cannons & missiles.

When dealing with China, the CIWS will be rather useless. And when it comes to Pakistan, they don't have enough ships that can pose enough of a threat.

Given the limited number of SAMs we carry using SAMs for all short range engagements would be a waste.

An officer had commented on that. They don't believe they will even use all the Baraks, so 32 is more than enough. It's the confidence they have in the system.

I don't understand economics. Explain this part to me.

Surely the Russians are not using USD to but their own weapons. They are using Rubles. Like we don't use UAD to buy Tejas, we use INR. If we can't use UAD values to compare GDP of 2 countries, why are we using USD to compare prices of different products in different countries ?

Shouldn't the price depend on scales of production. Which the Russians have & we don't yet ?

Russia is not unique here. Pakistan is more of less the same.

The USD figure puts things on an even keel for comparison. The Russians don't have any sort of scale when it comes to Su-57, but it's cheaper than the LCA anyway, even when LCA has the bigger order. When you actually compare scale, then the Su-35 and Su-30SM are less than half the price of the LCA, while being three times as heavy. So even if LCA has scale, it still can't compete. It's the same story with the Armata, which is cheaper than the T-90s produced in India, even though they barely have orders even 1/10th of India's orders.

The Russians have artificially reduced the strength of their currency in order to be more competitive elsewhere. It's a classic case of currency manipulation. So when we compare the defence budgets of the two countries, Russia's $42B and India's $45B, the Russians can simply buy way, way more than India for modernisation. Their T-90 costs a little over a million bucks now. They haven't revealed its price but I bet the Gorshkov class costs about $200M each, or even lesser. They are buying at least 3 or 4 Gorshkovs for the price of one Nilgiri class. For the price of 1 Rafale, they are buying 3-4 Su-57s.

So the Russian GDP and military budget are not reflective of their actual strength. They are doing 2-3 times more than what India is doing with the same amount of money, their efficiency is somewhere else, plus they are also spending a lot more money than us. The Russians are way richer than India today, even without considering other factors like their energy independence and per capita income. My bet is we will take at least 10 years to reach their current levels of spending, which would require a capital budget exceeding $60B. That's the kind of efficiency they have. And in 15 years, they will naturally be more or less competitive with the US and China, even with a much smaller budget.

This is nothing strange since their actual defence budget a few years ago was well over $80B.

Makes no sense. Russia is the only Chinese partner that is capable. Everybody else is a satellite. There is zero sense in ruining your relationship with the closest thing you have to a friend over some territory. I don't see this happening.

They are not friends though. Their relationship is transactional. With China making their way towards energy independence faster than anyone else in the world, their need for Russia is reducing by the day. They obviously are no longer dependent on Russia for aerospace tech. And with the need for oil reducing, the relations with Russia will also change.

And China isn't just interested in some bits and pieces of territory like in Ladakh, they want Vladivostok and many other border towns and cities along their border. They have also laid claim to over half of Tajikistan's eastern region, the entire Palmyran chain.

This is their actual objective.
ih44no06agu21.png


This map also explains their desire to control Sikkim, AP and Ladakh.

So Russia-China relations aren't really that great. Even the Russians are biding their time just like India. And, in 10-15 years, even they will have the kind of resources needed to compete with superpowers.

The FGFA is in some ways a perfect case of what will probably happen to most Indo-Russian projects in the future. A lot of hype that ends in disappointment.

Which brings me to my original point that the Brahmos-2 will probably go the FGFA way.

The FGFA failed because it was a one-sided transaction. The Russians did not promise sufficient ToT and workshare was dismal. Otoh, Brahmos-1 is already headed towards 85% indigenisation, and even Brahmos-2 will have its airframe, guidance, seeker, booster, warhead etc coming from India, with only the scramjet coming from Russia.

OFB had the designs of the Bofors Haubits FH77 since the late 1980s, a relic of the arms deal that sunk Rajiv Gandhi's govt. OFB sat on those designs for decades until the Indian Army's Field Artillery Rationalization Program (FARP) came up in early 2000s. Then the OFB scurried off to use those old F77 designs to develop a modernized version of the same. That's how the Dhanush artillery was born.

In 2015 the 1st Dhanush artillery gun was manufactured, 2 decades after OFB acquired those designs. In 2018, OFB sold 155mm gun's barrel in 39, 45 & 52 calibers to the Bofors. The Swedish company tested those barrels & were apparently impressed by it. In 2019 Bofors ordered OFB to deliver breaches & locking mechanisms of those barrels. OFB is exporting to Bofors, the world works in funny ways.

The point of this story is that the OFB is not as incompetent as we think & the Army is not as competent as we think. OFB sitting on those designs for decades is shameful, the Army twiddling their thumbs as the number of artillery units we have dwindled is far worse. I expect the exact same thing to happen with the Ak deal. ToT or not the Army will be content with what they have for now. Thus the OFB will sit on those designs again, they won't try to make new guns on their own. Not in their DNA. Few years later when there is another emergency requirement the Army will sign another deal with the Russians with full ToT.

And the cycle will continue.

Nah, mate. The OFB is really, really, really bad. If they are offering Bofors for export, you can bet the quality is not going to be the same as what's being offered to the IA. OFB's central theme is to skim off the top. Which is why stuff sent for testing is top notch, but once serial deliveries start, that's when problems begin.

Plus OFB's work ethics is one of the poorest, HAL suffered from the same until the IAF put a stop to it. But the IA is unable to do the same. So what DPSU workers do is they sit on projects the entire year and then work their asses off during the final quarter for very high overtime pay, particularly in March. The quality obviously suffers. When HAL was doing the same with MKIs, the IAF insisted on quarterly deliveries in batches instead of a single delivery at the end of the year. That solved their problem, but the IA is yet to solve this issue.

The core problem comes from DGQA which is indirectly controlled by civilians within the MoD instead of the armed forces. They are the ones who sign off on quality and there's plenty of civilian interference during the process. Modi is making reforms which will give the DGQA back to the forces and eliminate interference.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
Yeah. VL-SRSAM also has the same requirement.
Yep
When dealing with China, the CIWS will be rather useless. And when it comes to Pakistan, they don't have enough ships that can pose enough of a threat.
I have a feeling those 2 are not the only ones we'd have to deal with.
An officer had commented on that. They don't believe they will even use all the Baraks, so 32 is more than enough. It's the confidence they have in the system.
Strange. Even with a pK of 100%. They would be able to shoot down 36 targets per ship. IN uses multiple ships in every deployment & they do have co-operative engagement. But we are going to face Chinese vessels equipped will 100s of VLS.

Maybe the IN is convinced that the PLAN can't coming their top of the line combatants to the Indian Ocean anytime soon.
The USD figure puts things on an even keel for comparison. The Russians don't have any sort of scale when it comes to Su-57, but it's cheaper than the LCA anyway, even when LCA has the bigger order. When you actually compare scale, then the Su-35 and Su-30SM are less than half the price of the LCA, while being three times as heavy. So even if LCA has scale, it still can't compete. It's the same story with the Armata, which is cheaper than the T-90s produced in India, even though they barely have orders even 1/10th of India's orders.

The Russians have artificially reduced the strength of their currency in order to be more competitive elsewhere. It's a classic case of currency manipulation. So when we compare the defence budgets of the two countries, Russia's $42B and India's $45B, the Russians can simply buy way, way more than India for modernisation. Their T-90 costs a little over a million bucks now. They haven't revealed its price but I bet the Gorshkov class costs about $200M each, or even lesser. They are buying at least 3 or 4 Gorshkovs for the price of one Nilgiri class. For the price of 1 Rafale, they are buying 3-4 Su-57s.

So the Russian GDP and military budget are not reflective of their actual strength. They are doing 2-3 times more than what India is doing with the same amount of money, their efficiency is somewhere else, plus they are also spending a lot more money than us. The Russians are way richer than India today, even without considering other factors like their energy independence and per capita income. My bet is we will take at least 10 years to reach their current levels of spending, which would require a capital budget exceeding $60B. That's the kind of efficiency they have. And in 15 years, they will naturally be more or less competitive with the US and China, even with a much smaller budget.

This is nothing strange since their actual defence budget a few years ago was well over $80B.
So they reduce the value of their currency. It is currency manipulation. But we do the same & its economic mismanagement. I'll never understand the voodoo science that is economics.
They are not friends though. Their relationship is transactional. With China making their way towards energy independence faster than anyone else in the world, their need for Russia is reducing by the day. They obviously are no longer dependent on Russia for aerospace tech. And with the need for oil reducing, the relations with Russia will also change.

And China isn't just interested in some bits and pieces of territory like in Ladakh, they want Vladivostok and many other border towns and cities along their border. They have also laid claim to over half of Tajikistan's eastern region, the entire Palmyran chain.

This is their actual objective.
ih44no06agu21.png


This map also explains their desire to control Sikkim, AP and Ladakh.

So Russia-China relations aren't really that great. Even the Russians are biding their time just like India. And, in 10-15 years, even they will have the kind of resources needed to compete with superpowers.
I know this. I was wondering if the Chinese would act on these things given the turn of mood in the rest of the world with the COVID and all. Russia is their closest partner they have.
The FGFA failed because it was a one-sided transaction. The Russians did not promise sufficient ToT and workshare was dismal. Otoh, Brahmos-1 is already headed towards 85% indigenisation, and even Brahmos-2 will have its airframe, guidance, seeker, booster, warhead etc coming from India, with only the scramjet coming from Russia.
I remain skeptical about the engine part. Remember the Brahmos ALCM & the Brahmos NG were supposed to have Russian engines. The ALCM now has an engine developed by Brahmos Aerospace & DRDL. It seems the NG will go the same way.

Forget getting a Russian engine for the ALCM, even the wind tunnel tests for safe store separation was done by NAL. This is probably where we are headed with the Brahmos 2's engine. There will be Russian design influence & consultancy, but I doubt we will get a readymade engine from Russia.
Plus OFB's work ethics is one of the poorest, HAL suffered from the same until the IAF put a stop to it. But the IA is unable to do the same. So what DPSU workers do is they sit on projects the entire year and then work their asses off during the final quarter for very high overtime pay, particularly in March. The quality obviously suffers. When HAL was doing the same with MKIs, the IAF insisted on quarterly deliveries in batches instead of a single delivery at the end of the year. That solved their problem, but the IA is yet to solve this issue.
This is what I meant. The problems with DPSUs aren't limited to OFB. Both the IN & IAF has had the same issue. Both have tried to solve the issue. They have succeeded in some places & failed elsewhere. IA hasn't even begun moving. Arguably the IA is the least technologically intensive force, you would think they would be the 1st to fix issues with production. At this rate they would be the last.
The core problem comes from DGQA which is indirectly controlled by civilians within the MoD instead of the armed forces. They are the ones who sign off on quality and there's plenty of civilian interference during the process. Modi is making reforms which will give the DGQA back to the forces and eliminate interference.
That's hardly an Army only issue. Yet the Army is the most effected by the vagaries of tendering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
I have a feeling those 2 are not the only ones we'd have to deal with.

As long as we match the Chinese in the IOR, it won't be an issue matching anyone else, including the US, 'cause they are more interested in the Pacific right now.

Strange. Even with a pK of 100%. They would be able to shoot down 36 targets per ship. IN uses multiple ships in every deployment & they do have co-operative engagement. But we are going to face Chinese vessels equipped will 100s of VLS.

Maybe the IN is convinced that the PLAN can't coming their top of the line combatants to the Indian Ocean anytime soon.

A lot of missiles will go off the beaten path, some will miss, some will be taken care of with EW, some will be lured away and so on. Subsonic missiles can be defeated by fighter jets.

So they reduce the value of their currency. It is currency manipulation. But we do the same & its economic mismanagement. I'll never understand the voodoo science that is economics.

In their case, they started dumping dollars deliberately, replacing it with ruble and other currencies. In our case, dollars left our market because the people who owned the dollars lost hope in our economy, when we started doing 5%. Currency manipulation is a choice. Ours was just bad fundamentals.

The Russians have a very high current account surplus, exceeds $150B, their public debt is negligible, only 12%. And they have a very high HDI. These are macroeconomic indicators that we can only dream of today.

I know this. I was wondering if the Chinese would act on these things given the turn of mood in the rest of the world with the COVID and all. Russia is their closest partner they have.

No one is there to challenge them. The US-UK combine are only looking after their own interests, the French have washed their hands of China, and all the other Europeans are too weak. And everybody wants good economic relations with China. This is just Hitler 2.0.

The only country China thinks of as its equal is the US, with a "for now" clause. They think of Russia as a future vassal or an enemy. So the question really is whether the Russians will agree to that.

I remain skeptical about the engine part. Remember the Brahmos ALCM & the Brahmos NG were supposed to have Russian engines. The ALCM now has an engine developed by Brahmos Aerospace & DRDL. It seems the NG will go the same way.

Forget getting a Russian engine for the ALCM, even the wind tunnel tests for safe store separation was done by NAL. This is probably where we are headed with the Brahmos 2's engine. There will be Russian design influence & consultancy, but I doubt we will get a readymade engine from Russia.

This is the first I've heard of an indigenous engine on Brahmos. Attempts to produce the Russian engine at BATL failed because they refused ToT.

The only tech related to the propulsion system we have changed is some electronics and the booster. Would have been very big news if the engine was Indian. All defence journos would have brought it to our attention, with interviews and stuff.

This is what I meant. The problems with DPSUs aren't limited to OFB. Both the IN & IAF has had the same issue. Both have tried to solve the issue. They have succeeded in some places & failed elsewhere. IA hasn't even begun moving. Arguably the IA is the least technologically intensive force, you would think they would be the 1st to fix issues with production. At this rate they would be the last.

That's hardly an Army only issue. Yet the Army is the most effected by the vagaries of tendering.

The IA hasn't been able to make the same kind of changes the others have. And the problem is OFB isn't a DPSU, it's directly under the MoD. So the functioning is very different from a DPSU. The corporatisation of OFB will actually turn it into a DPSU, or many DPSUs, once split. So when it comes to buying from the OFB, the IN and IAF have also suffered. The main advantage for them is they are not dependent on OFB, whereas the IA is completely dependent on it, which even they are attempting to change through privatisation of many technologies.

Another culprit is DRDO, which used to exclusively hand over their tech only to OFB and DPSUs. Luckily even that's changing.

This is a major systemic problem which has only begun to be addressed under the BJP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
As long as we match the Chinese in the IOR, it won't be an issue matching anyone else, including the US, 'cause they are more interested in the Pacific right now.
I see a threat emerging form the Mediterranean Sea. Take a guess.
A lot of missiles will go off the beaten path, some will miss, some will be taken care of with EW, some will be lured away and so on. Subsonic missiles can be defeated by fighter jets.
We can summon fighters in the IOR. Not out side of that. Although that's not an immediate problem.
In their case, they started dumping dollars deliberately, replacing it with ruble and other currencies. In our case, dollars left our market because the people who owned the dollars lost hope in our economy, when we started doing 5%. Currency manipulation is a choice. Ours was just bad fundamentals.
How do you dump a foreign currency for a domestic one. Don't they serve different purposes ?
The Russians have a very high current account surplus, exceeds $150B, their public debt is negligible, only 12%. And they have a very high HDI. These are macroeconomic indicators that we can only dream of today.
That's true. Our energy dependence is a major bane.
No one is there to challenge them. The US-UK combine are only looking after their own interests, the French have washed their hands of China, and all the other Europeans are too weak. And everybody wants good economic relations with China. This is just Hitler 2.0.

The only country China thinks of as its equal is the US, with a "for now" clause. They think of Russia as a future vassal or an enemy. So the question really is whether the Russians will agree to that.
I don't see the Russians agreeing to being a junior partner. But its not like Russia has a lot of partners either. So one balance I think the Russians will unofficially accept being the junior partner as long as their core interests aren't hurt. Which is why any conflict initiated by China sounds strange.
This is the first I've heard of an indigenous engine on Brahmos. Attempts to produce the Russian engine at BATL failed because they refused ToT.

The only tech related to the propulsion system we have changed is some electronics and the booster. Would have been very big news if the engine was Indian. All defence journos would have brought it to our attention, with interviews and stuff.
Initial attempts at negotiations with the Russians failed. At that time (pre 2010) it was reported that 65% of the Brahmos missile's components came from Russia. Ramjet engine, seeker, solid booster etc. all critical parts were Russian. They wanted to remain the sole supplier of these critical parts. We were making the airframe & launchers at that time.

After the failure in negotiations DRDL started their own ramjet engine project. They started putting out research papers on ramjet engines since the early 2010. Negotiations were pursued with the Russians again, this time with the added threat that we will go our own way if they don't help us. There was the added fear that we might reverse engineer the Russian ramjet.

Meanwhile manufacturing facilities were being set up. This is from Oct 2011 :
“The BATL has already bagged orders worth Rs. 190 crore for various products, including Rs. 65 crore from the Indian Space Research Organisation. Given its performance, we have decided to ask it to make the entire BrahMos missile, including the nose cap, the whole of F3 [the missile section comprising airframe and fuel tank] and the ramjet engine. In effect, it will be the complete missile except the composite part and warhead. Anyway, the BATL is already making some critical airframe components of the missile such as the front docking unit and the shutter assembly,” BrahMos Chief Executive Officer A. Sivathanu Pillai told The Hindu at an interaction in New Delhi last week.
At present, the BrahMos engines are produced at Orenburg in Russia. Besides the BATL, one more Indian company would be qualified to make the missile's engines, Mr. Pillai added.

Source: BATL set to make BrahMos engines

Besides the BATL the other Indian company qualified to make engines, as Mr. Pillai put it, is Godrej Aerospace. Anyway the negotiations turned acrimonious, the Russians refused to help. So we went about replacing most of the critical Russian parts.

In 2012-13 period DRDL called in many tenders for ground testing ramjets, although the dimensions seem too small for the Brahmos. DRDL had past experience with ramjets from the Akash SAM project, but the Akash has a solid fueled ramjet & this new one they were working on was a liquid fueled one. In many ways this projects helped out the HSTDV projects too in matters of fuel handling, pressurization, throttling etc.

In 2013-14 the Russians hiked the price for conducting a series of wind-tunnel tests ahead of the integration of the BrahMos-A on to the Su-30MKI with no ToT. Of course this was seen as a retaliation for trying to replace them as the sole supplier. This led to NAL completing the wind tunnel work themselves. The launcher plyons of the Brahmos-A were also developed by BATL.

Source: NAL bailed out BrahMos ALCM when Russians asked for the Moon

Brahmos Aerospace started developing IP of their own. In 2017 Sudhir Mishra, MD and CEO of BrahMos Aerospace said this:

BrahMos Aerospace is already taking steps in this direction and is developing the scramjet independently with the aid of Russian firms. The country is also making serious attempts to localise the production of the missile which currently relies heavily on Russia.

Source: After Optimisation, India's BrahMos Missile Could Achieve Mach 5 Speed In Four Years

In 2018, Mr Mishra said they would be able to make a Mach 7 capable scramjet engine by the next 5-7 years. A Mach 7 capable Brahmos would be ready in 7-10 year, so by 2025-28.

Source: BrahMos missile will breach mach 7 barrier in next decade: Top official

By 2025-28, DRDO will probably have 2 hypersonic cruise missiles derived from the HSTDV ready. It is these timelines that make me wonder if we will actually get a Russian engine at all. I believe the Russians are delaying the Brahmos-2 on purpose as a negotiating tactics. The concurrent development of Indian scramjet engines both by ISRO & DRDO puts things into jeopardy.

From an Indian point of view, if we are working hard for a decade to reduce our dependence on Russian components on the Brahmos does it make sense to go for a Russian engine for the Brahmos-2 ? We will be back where we started. It will be difficult to justify especially with 2 Indian scramjets in flight testing stage.

In 2019 Mishra stated that the tech for the steep dive version of Brahmos was developed on their own. A newer nozzle was the tech that was needed for the steep dive capability.

Mishra said for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, Brahmos has become a weapon of choice and the steep 90-degree version has become an ultimate aircraft carrier killer. He said the technologies that BrahMos Aerospace has developed did not exist either in India or Russia earlier.

Source: BrahMos: Upgraded BrahMos with 500-km range ready: CEO of BrahMos Aerospace

BATL has been manufacturing a engine casings for the Brahmos for a while now:
1630594611408.png


The Indian seeker was tested in 2019. The increasing levels of indigenization has disturbed the Russians. They even refused to help the development of Brahmos' new solid booster. That was funny though as that will change nothing. We are pretty good with solid rockets.

Source: DRDO developing solid propellant for BrahMos after Russia refuses support

It was reported that with the new seeker & new booster 85% of Brahmos' components will be coming form India. The rest 15% are still coming from Russia. I believe BATL is not making a 100% of the ramjet engine but they are making a good chunk of it.

The Brahmos-A however is completely made in India, including the ramjet. The ramjet was developed with significant Russian help. DRDL was also involved with the design. Brahmos-NG is likely to derive the A's engine. DRDL is continuing work with that.


As for the land & sea based Brahmos there are many new versions of the engine under-development. Besides the 290 & 400km versions, there are 800-900km & a 1500km version. There are also enhancement of cruise speed going on. From Mach 2.8 to 3 & eventually Mach 5. They can't all be using the same engine. You will need at least 3 engine version to achieve all this. Plenty of opportunities to reduce Russian IP.

The IA hasn't been able to make the same kind of changes the others have. And the problem is OFB isn't a DPSU, it's directly under the MoD. So the functioning is very different from a DPSU. The corporatisation of OFB will actually turn it into a DPSU, or many DPSUs, once split. So when it comes to buying from the OFB, the IN and IAF have also suffered. The main advantage for them is they are not dependent on OFB, whereas the IA is completely dependent on it, which even they are attempting to change through privatisation of many technologies.

Another culprit is DRDO, which used to exclusively hand over their tech only to OFB and DPSUs. Luckily even that's changing.

This is a major systemic problem which has only begun to be addressed under the BJP.
The point is Army did nothing so far while the rest of the services did. Now things are changing somewhat due to politics. I take your point that the IN & IAF don't depend on OFBs as much as the Army. But the Army gets the largest share of the budget, they have the most purchasing power. They aren't toothless.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
I see a threat emerging form the Mediterranean Sea. Take a guess.

I don't see the Turks as enough of a threat without flattop carriers and nuclear submarines, particularly nuclear submarines. Without nuke propulsion, any force can be separated and stranded in another ocean due to lack of fuel. Maybe sometime after the 2050s, if they chase after these technologies.

Right now, the two biggest threats to the Indian Navy are the US and Russia, we aren't even capable of fighting them. Good thing we have excellent relations with both. The upcoming threat over the next decade is China. If we are lucky we will have enough tech to at least defend ourselves by 2035 or so. The French and Brits have the tech, but are occupied elsewhere and don't have enough assets to bother us. Everybody else is not a threat to the IN.

How do you dump a foreign currency for a domestic one. Don't they serve different purposes ?

When we say dumping, the Russians are actually giving up the dollar for other currencies like the euro and yen, including the ruble, nothing more. For example, Indo-Russian defence trade is now being done using rupees and rubles. So a Russian bank has set up a branch in India, GoI deposits rupees into the Indian branch and RoE withdraws an equal amount in rubles from the Russian branch. This way the USD was completely bypassed, so there's no circulation of the USD in the Russian financial market, hence the currency depreciates.

Another way is for the Russian central bank to simply buy up dollars, euros etc in exchange for rubles. This weakens currency since the supply of forex becomes low.

Anyway the main reason why ruble weakened is because foreign investors simply quit Russia due to sanctions. The Russians are simply making full use of their weakened currency in the export market.

I don't see the Russians agreeing to being a junior partner. But its not like Russia has a lot of partners either. So one balance I think the Russians will unofficially accept being the junior partner as long as their core interests aren't hurt. Which is why any conflict initiated by China sounds strange.

As an ex-superpower, the Russians are their own side. Also they have the potential of matching Japan in terms of economy over 15-20 years. They are also dreaming of creating a fully integrated EEU as a major economic power, which will have a little less than half of EU's population by 2050.

The Brahmos-A however is completely made in India, including the ramjet. The ramjet was developed with significant Russian help. DRDL was also involved with the design. Brahmos-NG is likely to derive the A's engine. DRDL is continuing work with that.


I would like to believe that, but I don't think it's correct. At best, we may have performed some modifications. Perhaps some Indianisation of cold parts. But the engine itself will be Russian. Also, we aren't interested in reverse engineering beyond the purposes of R&D. In case we ever replace the engine, other than the fact that it will make the news, the missile itself will be given a whole new name.

You can actually assume that while 85% of the Brahmos will soon be Indian, the remaining 15% is the engine that's imported. 15% is pretty reasonable for the cost of the engine.

As for the land & sea based Brahmos there are many new versions of the engine under-development. Besides the 290 & 400km versions, there are 800-900km & a 1500km version. There are also enhancement of cruise speed going on. From Mach 2.8 to 3 & eventually Mach 5. They can't all be using the same engine. You will need at least 3 engine version to achieve all this. Plenty of opportunities to reduce Russian IP.

These are just Russian versions which are being Indianised with Indian IP. Even the Russians were talking about a smaller air-launched version of the Oniks, which is presumably the Brahmos-M.

The 800Km version of the Oniks is already under testing since 2019.

Similarly, their mach 4.5 version, possibly even the 800Km version is near-hypersonic, would have already finished development in Russia before being introduced in India as the Brahmos-H or whatever.

As per the JV, India and Russia will each work on their own share as the lead. At best, we may have some design input and Indianisation of some parts, but I don't think any missile being developed under Brahmos Aerospace will ever have an Indian engine, because then it will no longer be a JV. DRDO's indigenous engines are aimed towards other fully Indian-designed missiles, like the LR-LACM, rather than Brahmos.

DRDO may try to get more done for Brahmos-2 though. But I think it's gonna be pretty dumb to do it with the Russians if we simply replace the Zircon's engine with an Indian one and then give them nealy half of the profits from Brahmos Aerospace. Which is why I think Brahmos-2 will be a missile with Indian airframe, warhead, seeker, guidance, booster etc mated to a Russian engine with Russian-concocted fuel, no different from the Brahmos-1 family.

The point is Army did nothing so far while the rest of the services did. Now things are changing somewhat due to politics. I take your point that the IN & IAF don't depend on OFBs as much as the Army. But the Army gets the largest share of the budget, they have the most purchasing power. They aren't toothless.

Yeah, the army definitely failed in finding some workaround.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,694
9,948
Tripura, NE, India
When we say dumping, the Russians are actually giving up the dollar for other currencies like the euro and yen, including the ruble, nothing more. For example, Indo-Russian defence trade is now being done using rupees and rubles. So a Russian bank has set up a branch in India, GoI deposits rupees into the Indian branch and RoE withdraws an equal amount in rubles from the Russian branch. This way the USD was completely bypassed, so there's no circulation of the USD in the Russian financial market, hence the currency depreciates.

Another way is for the Russian central bank to simply buy up dollars, euros etc in exchange for rubles. This weakens currency since the supply of forex becomes low.

Anyway the main reason why ruble weakened is because foreign investors simply quit Russia due to sanctions. The Russians are simply making full use of their weakened currency in the export market.
Interesting. I didn't know of the Rupee-Ruble arrangement. Wonder if we can have similar arrangements with other countries.
You can actually assume that while 85% of the Brahmos will soon be Indian, the remaining 15% is the engine that's imported. 15% is pretty reasonable for the cost of the engine.
15% was by component count not be cost. By cost the Russian share is bigger. I agree that the engine is still Russian, but I refuse to believe that the engine accounts for only 15% of the components.
As per the JV, India and Russia will each work on their own share as the lead. At best, we may have some design input and Indianisation of some parts, but I don't think any missile being developed under Brahmos Aerospace will ever have an Indian engine, because then it will no longer be a JV. DRDO's indigenous engines are aimed towards other fully Indian-designed missiles, like the LR-LACM, rather than Brahmos.
If you recall, the seeker & the booster et al were also in Russia's workshare. That clearly wont be the case going forward. Replacing the engine will be very difficult. But the effort is clearly to chip away & reduce Russian IP.
DRDO may try to get more done for Brahmos-2 though. But I think it's gonna be pretty dumb to do it with the Russians if we simply replace the Zircon's engine with an Indian one and then give them nealy half of the profits from Brahmos Aerospace. Which is why I think Brahmos-2 will be a missile with Indian airframe, warhead, seeker, guidance, booster etc mated to a Russian engine with Russian-concocted fuel, no different from the Brahmos-1 family.
Profits get divided by shareholding, so no mater what the Russians will get 49% of the profits. That hasn't stopped us from replacing many Russian components on the Brahmos-1. Why would that change now ?

I see the profit share as an inherited problem created by the circumstances of the past. I don't think Russia & India would have formed the Brahmos Aerospace had the Soviet Union never collapsed. Their economic vulnerability made them share many critical technologies in the past. That cannot be undone. Just like that our technological inabilities led to dependence on other nations for weapons. Currently both nations are trying to rectify their past problems to varying degrees of success.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Interesting. I didn't know of the Rupee-Ruble arrangement. Wonder if we can have similar arrangements with other countries.

Rupee sucks, and this arrangement only benefits us. Anybody not sanctioned would prefer reserve currencies. But we have a similar arrangement with Iran, and hell even they prefer euros instead.

15% was by component count not be cost. By cost the Russian share is bigger. I agree that the engine is still Russian, but I refuse to believe that the engine accounts for only 15% of the components.

It's by cost actually.

"As of today 65 per cent of the value (in BrahMos) is created in India. We started with a very low 10-12 per cent indigenisation and today we have reached 65 per cent. In another six months, we would be close to 75 per cent," BrahMos Aerospace managing director and CEO Sudhir Mishra said

"Last March, we flight tested the indigenously made seeker, and booster also would be shortly tested in about two months. We would be reaching to a localization of about 85 per cent in this," he said.


15% is a pretty high price for the cost of the engine actually, especially since it's just a one-use system. Also, the Russians are probably raking in at least 200% or more in profits due to the weaker currency, as I had explained before.

If you recall, the seeker & the booster et al were also in Russia's workshare. That clearly wont be the case going forward. Replacing the engine will be very difficult. But the effort is clearly to chip away & reduce Russian IP.

AFAIK, almost everything Russian was supposed to be manufactured through ToT, with the rest being Indianised. But the Russians denied ToT for most of the stuff, hence the need to go for indigenisation. Also, even the engine was supposed to be transferred, as you already know, but I guess we decided to switch with Indian IP for everything in lieu of the engine. And engine imports continued in order to keep the JV functioning as one. I suppose the alternative was they wouldn't allow the missile for export if we replaced the engine too. Obsolescence also played its part, we would obviously want to keep upgrading the electronics and such, as the Russian stuff got old.

Profits get divided by shareholding, so no mater what the Russians will get 49% of the profits. That hasn't stopped us from replacing many Russian components on the Brahmos-1. Why would that change now ?

For Brahmos-1, after 20+ years, it would make political and financial sense to continue with the arrangement. We have obviously benefited a lot through Russia. But, for Brahmos-2, if we end up replacing the engine, then 100% of the technologies would be Indian, but we will still have to share 49.5% with Russia, so it wouldn't make sense to continue the program with the Russians. However it would make sense if the Russians simply hand over the engine for Brahmos-2, as they did for Brahmos-1. That's the only way for the JV to make sense.

As for HSTDV, I honestly don't believe we will make what we want faster than just Indianising the Zircon. DRDO's claim of weaponising it in 4-5 years seems a bit unrealistic after just 1 flight test. You have already seen the kind of nonsense DRDO scientists keep pushing on us. Nevertheless, going by their timeframe, then we can assume that 4-5 years to design and build prototypes, 3-5 years for flight testing and user trials, 2 years to begin delivery, other potential delays, will take us into the mid-2030s. I don't believe the forces will wait patiently for DRDO to finish this on their own, when a Zircon-derived Brahmos-2 can be had within less than half that time.

There's also capability. We know Zircon does at least mach 8-9 to 1000Km. If we assume it manages 3 Km/s, we will have the scramjet burning for at least 6 minutes. Otoh, our only known HSTDV test was at 2 Km/s for 20 seconds, so it's only at the very first step as a mere demonstrator, while Zircon is at the very last step as a weapon.