Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
"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.
Oh my bad then.
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.
Yeah. Besides the engine what else is Russian ? Warhead ?
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.
With CAASTA and all exporting the Brahmos is very difficult anyway. So I don't think there will be any exports anytime soon. Very surprised with the Philippines planning to acquire it though. They got a waiver ?
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.
I can only see the relation getting increasingly acrimonious. As such JVs will be more ceremonial than functional. If the Brahmos-2 gets a Russian engine it will probably be used as a stopgap until our own scramjets arrive. That is the best case scenario I can think of.
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.
The HSTDV based weapons wont have a full powered flight. The scramjet will be ON for about 300-350 seconds. The rest of the flight will be booster driven or gliding flight.

ISRO will soon conduct a flight test of the HAVA which is a Mach 6-7 scramjet powered vehicle flying for >250 sec. There is a great deal of tech sharing between ISRO & DRDO for strategic projects. I don't see why DRDO wont be involved with that project & can't learn from that experience. If quick weaponization is the intention borrow ISRO's scramjet & make a Mach 6-7 cruise missile. Meanwhile DRDO can also continue on upping the speed of their engine.

4-5 years is ambitious, not impossible.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Yeah. Besides the engine what else is Russian ? Warhead ?

No clue actually. It would make sense to Indianise the warhead, especially after MTCR, but I don't know the status of such a program. The air-launched one has a different warhead, maybe that's Indian.

With CAASTA and all exporting the Brahmos is very difficult anyway. So I don't think there will be any exports anytime soon. Very surprised with the Philippines planning to acquire it though. They got a waiver ?

CAATSA is unlikely to affect Brahmos since India is the majority stakeholder in Brahmos Aerospace. Any attempts to include Brahmos into CAATSA will lead to a major diplomatic problem, which I'm sure the US will want to avoid. Plus our main goal is to arm ASEAN against China, so it's not going against American interests. Also, the most critical technologies on Brahmos are Indian, so I doubt they will be worried about the Russians tampering with it. I for one am not worried about this.

I can only see the relation getting increasingly acrimonious. As such JVs will be more ceremonial than functional. If the Brahmos-2 gets a Russian engine it will probably be used as a stopgap until our own scramjets arrive. That is the best case scenario I can think of.

I agree with that. There's plenty of stuff we operate that can benefit from a direct Brahmos-2 upgrade rather than a different replacement. And once we start playing with the big players, our CM requirements would go so high that Brahmos-1 numbers would be piddly in comparison anyway. For example, the US is buying 10,000+ JASSM family. Even we are going to go into the thousands eventually.

The HSTDV based weapons wont have a full powered flight. The scramjet will be ON for about 300-350 seconds. The rest of the flight will be booster driven or gliding flight.

300-350 seconds puts it in the same class as Zircon, ie that is 5-6 minutes, after all. At 3Km/s, we get 900-1050Km. If the speed is higher than Zircon, then we will also get more range. At 4Km/s or mach 12, it's 1200-1400Km. The only options are to either match the Zircon, thereby replacing it, or simply create a whole new class of missiles. As long as we pursue Brahmos-2, I honestly don't believe we intend to duplicate it.

4-5 years is ambitious, not impossible.

Shouldn't forget that the Russians themselves took 5 years of flight testing to get the Zircon operational on their bombers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
The air-launched one has a different warhead, maybe that's Indian.
Different as in lighter ?
CAATSA is unlikely to affect Brahmos since India is the majority stakeholder in Brahmos Aerospace. Any attempts to include Brahmos into CAATSA will lead to a major diplomatic problem, which I'm sure the US will want to avoid. Plus our main goal is to arm ASEAN against China, so it's not going against American interests. Also, the most critical technologies on Brahmos are Indian, so I doubt they will be worried about the Russians tampering with it. I for one am not worried about this.
The Print reported that CAATSA was a major impediment to Brahmos' export. But then it The Print. so....
I agree with that. There's plenty of stuff we operate that can benefit from a direct Brahmos-2 upgrade rather than a different replacement. And once we start playing with the big players, our CM requirements would go so high that Brahmos-1 numbers would be piddly in comparison anyway. For example, the US is buying 10,000+ JASSM family. Even we are going to go into the thousands eventually.
Lack of Indian short, medium & long range subsonic cruise missiles is a major problem for us. Our current subsonic missiles include the Russian Club missile, American Harpoon, some other older Soviet missiles. It is a mess. Even then most subsonic missiles we have are of <300km range. We did not buy more missiles after entering the MTCR.

The Nirbhay maybe deployed in limited numbers but the ITCM program is not out of the woods yet. New engine, seekers, modes of attack, warheads etc. plenty of variables. The ITCM still might take a couple of years to sort itself out, forget getting stealthier subsonic missiles like the JASSM.

The closest thing we have to a stealthy subsonic cruise missile is the HAL/Newspace CATS Hunter. It is heartening to see Newspace get orders from the Army.
300-350 seconds puts it in the same class as Zircon, ie that is 5-6 minutes, after all. At 3Km/s, we get 900-1050Km.
Apparently the targeted range is 1000 km+
Shouldn't forget that the Russians themselves took 5 years of flight testing to get the Zircon operational on their bombers.
No no. I meant 1st flight in 4-5 years.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
I wish that ADE should start working on stealthy cruise missile it's within their capability.
The ADE lab is yet to complete a single major project. Nirbhay, Rustom UAV etc. you name it. Every major project ADE has undertaken is hanging. DRDL, RCI & the rest of the missile cluster are a far better bet for making stealthy cruise missiles.

After GTRE sorts out the STFE, a stealthy high-subsonic cruise missile becomes doable. We have the seeker, composites, coatings etc. needed for such a project. HAL & ADA has in experience with stealth designs, wind tunnels & RCS testing. But the most important thing is the AoNs issued by the services. That is missing so far.

I was rather disappointed to see the NASM-SR have a bare bones basic design. But I guess there isn't a lot of sense in making a helo launched 55km ranged solid rocket powered missile stealthy. I do hope the NASM-MR & LR have turbofan/turbojet engine & have a stealthy shape.
 

Chain Smoker

Well-Known member
Mar 2, 2020
744
592
india
The ADE lab is yet to complete a single major project. Nirbhay, Rustom UAV etc. you name it. Every major project ADE has undertaken is hanging. DRDL, RCI & the rest of the missile cluster are a far better bet for making stealthy cruise missiles.

After GTRE sorts out the STFE, a stealthy high-subsonic cruise missile becomes doable. We have the seeker, composites, coatings etc. needed for such a project. HAL & ADA has in experience with stealth designs, wind tunnels & RCS testing. But the most important thing is the AoNs issued by the services. That is missing so far.

I was rather disappointed to see the NASM-SR have a bare bones basic design. But I guess there isn't a lot of sense in making a helo launched 55km ranged solid rocket powered missile stealthy. I do hope the NASM-MR & LR have turbofan/turbojet engine & have a stealthy shape.
Seems like DRDL is having some expertise on jet powered missile.
 

Attachments

  • 16232-Article Text-62198-1-10-20210902.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 72

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Different as in lighter ?

Different as in it's not restricted by MTCR. It's the full 300Kg version. Whether it's Russian or not, I don't know. The previous ones use the MTCR restricted 200Kg version.

The Print reported that CAATSA was a major impediment to Brahmos' export. But then it The Print. so....

It's the ol' "Get your opinion in before something actually happens so you can claim amazing foresight when what you said actually comes to pass in order to look good" tactic. In case it fails, ah, well, it's just an opinion piece. Since the odds are 50-50 and there are no ramifications for being wrong, then why not? In the meantime, make some money. You win either way. That's how speculation on the internet works.

Lack of Indian short, medium & long range subsonic cruise missiles is a major problem for us. Our current subsonic missiles include the Russian Club missile, American Harpoon, some other older Soviet missiles. It is a mess. Even then most subsonic missiles we have are of <300km range. We did not buy more missiles after entering the MTCR.

The Nirbhay maybe deployed in limited numbers but the ITCM program is not out of the woods yet. New engine, seekers, modes of attack, warheads etc. plenty of variables. The ITCM still might take a couple of years to sort itself out, forget getting stealthier subsonic missiles like the JASSM.

The closest thing we have to a stealthy subsonic cruise missile is the HAL/Newspace CATS Hunter. It is heartening to see Newspace get orders from the Army.

Apparently the targeted range is 1000 km+

I find it weird that we do not have enough information about indigenous short and medium range missiles. We have the air-launched NASM-SR for short range. I suppose we are more interested in importing this capability. It is possible that instead of DRDO bothering with it, the private sector will be allowed to develop solutions in the short and medium range segments for ground launched capabilities. For long range there's obviously ITCM and LR-LACM.

No no. I meant 1st flight in 4-5 years.

Honestly, if only to spite the Russians for delaying Brahmos-2 for so long, I'd actually like to see a weaponised form of the HSTDV taking off before Brahmos-2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
Seems like DRDL is having some expertise on jet powered missile.
In that paper they are looking to find the most efficient way to control a missile. 2 methods studied are the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) & the pole placement technique based controller. The LQR came out on top in their tests. The DOF model looks very similar to the Nirbhay ALCM. I forgot Nirbhay had an ALCM version.
Different as in it's not restricted by MTCR. It's the full 300Kg version. Whether it's Russian or not, I don't know. The previous ones use the MTCR restricted 200Kg version.
MTCR restricts export of conventional warheads ? I thought it was only about delivery platforms.
It's the ol' "Get your opinion in before something actually happens so you can claim amazing foresight when what you said actually comes to pass in order to look good" tactic. In case it fails, ah, well, it's just an opinion piece. Since the odds are 50-50 and there are no ramifications for being wrong, then why not? In the meantime, make some money. You win either way. That's how speculation on the internet works.
Yep very true. Sometimes I think the Coupta name is well deserved.
I find it weird that we do not have enough information about indigenous short and medium range missiles. We have the air-launched NASM-SR for short range. I suppose we are more interested in importing this capability. It is possible that instead of DRDO bothering with it, the private sector will be allowed to develop solutions in the short and medium range segments for ground launched capabilities. For long range there's obviously ITCM and LR-LACM.
Indian private sector is capable of producing short range CMs !?!?! I suppose its not impossible if they join forces. Kalyani is making engines, TATA & L&T has plenty of aerospace manufacturing capability. Data Patterns & Astra Microwave can make seekers. VEM technologies et al can make electronics. Who will do the design though ?

What they will most likely do is assembly for some global OEM. Not their own design.
Honestly, if only to spite the Russians for delaying Brahmos-2 for so long, I'd actually like to see a weaponised form of the HSTDV taking off before Brahmos-2.
Delay with Brahmos-2 is still justifiable. Delay with Brahmos-NG is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
MTCR restricts export of conventional warheads ? I thought it was only about delivery platforms.

Not the warheads themselves, but the weight.

The restriction is 500kg actually, not 250Kg. Weird that the ground-launched systems carry 200Kg then. Brahmos-A carries 300Kg. The Russians lack an air-launched version, but their missiles have 300Kg. So I suppose the Russians had decided not to export it, rather than it being an MTCR restriction. Which means they either changed their minds for Brahmos-A, or it's an Indian warhead.

Yep very true. Sometimes I think the Coupta name is well deserved.

That nickname sums it up.

Indian private sector is capable of producing short range CMs !?!?! I suppose its not impossible if they join forces. Kalyani is making engines, TATA & L&T has plenty of aerospace manufacturing capability. Data Patterns & Astra Microwave can make seekers. VEM technologies et al can make electronics. Who will do the design though ?

I'm more inclined to believe the navy will release a tender for such a missile and private companies will participate along with a foreign partner. So Uran, NSM/JSM, Harpoon, Exocet, Gabriel, RBS-15 etc.

What they will most likely do is assembly for some global OEM. Not their own design.

Some Indianisation may happen. Like L&T has done with Vajra.

It's more about private participation in order to develop their capabilities for the future rather than focus solely on creating Indian IP right from the start at the cost of operational capability.

Delay with Brahmos-2 is still justifiable. Delay with Brahmos-NG is not.

Brahmos-NG may have seen significant design changes after MTCR though. Anyway it's the typical Russian behaviour of not delivering what's promised.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
Not the warheads themselves, but the weight.

The restriction is 500kg actually, not 250Kg. Weird that the ground-launched systems carry 200Kg then. Brahmos-A carries 300Kg. The Russians lack an air-launched version, but their missiles have 300Kg. So I suppose the Russians had decided not to export it, rather than it being an MTCR restriction. Which means they either changed their minds for Brahmos-A, or it's an Indian warhead.
Strange thing to change your mind about. What will not exporting a 50kg heavier warhead change ?
I'm more inclined to believe the navy will release a tender for such a missile and private companies will participate along with a foreign partner. So Uran, NSM/JSM, Harpoon, Exocet, Gabriel, RBS-15 etc.
The only thing I am worried about is that the Navy might end up with multiple missiles. DRDO, of course, will try their best to scuttle any such tender.
Some Indianisation may happen. Like L&T has done with Vajra.

It's more about private participation in order to develop their capabilities for the future rather than focus solely on creating Indian IP right from the start at the cost of operational capability.
Its not the same as the Vajra's case. Missile tech is always subject to more restrictions than armoured vehicle tech. The learning curve is also quite steep.
Brahmos-NG may have seen significant design changes after MTCR though.
I thought the NG will retain its 300km range despite India's MTCR entry. Are they thinking of increasing range ?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Strange thing to change your mind about. What will not exporting a 50kg heavier warhead change ?

Yeah, it's weird. BMs came with a 500Kg warhead and 300Km range limit, which apparently is the same for UCAVs and CMs. It may be a bilateral deal between Russia and US to limit the size of the warhead for supersonic CMs. Or possibly something in the 300Kg version that the Russians decided they will not export. Which is why I don't know if the warhead in Brahmos-A is the same as the Russians use or different. Only BA can clarify this point because the export warhead is different from what the Russians use.

The only thing I am worried about is that the Navy might end up with multiple missiles. DRDO, of course, will try their best to scuttle any such tender.

That's the best result. We shouldn't be importing weapons of any kind, except for stuff we don't yet/can't make on our own or are exotic. But the problem with DRDO is the forces want alternate capabilities cropping up within the private sector, and anything DRDO makes has the higher probability of it ending up with a DPSU instead.

Multiple class of missiles for the navy is fine. The navy is not affected like the air force and army are since their logistics is largely centralised.

Its not the same as the Vajra's case. Missile tech is always subject to more restrictions than armoured vehicle tech. The learning curve is also quite steep.

Private companies are doing quite well though. Bharat Forge is developing gas turbines for example. They can go about it the same way BA did with Brahmos, start with OEM tech, followed by indigenisation of critical sensors. Their starting point is also higher than what DRDO was back in the late 90s. For example, it's not difficult for Tonbo to supply the imaging seeker to L&T or others for such a missile. Inertial navigation for guidance is not difficult to develop at this time.

I thought the NG will retain its 300km range despite India's MTCR entry. Are they thinking of increasing range ?

No point in restricting ourselves. The 300Km restriction allows the enemy to reliably pick up the launch platform since it brings it within LoS of air surveillance. Bring in indirect pathing with waypoints and the range decreases further. So doubling the range of the NG is the minimum necessary to keep even the air-based platform away from horizon. Also, they are planning to make an AWACS-killer out of it, which should also have a minimum range of 500Km or so, but will likely be a lot more than that.
 

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
That's the best result. We shouldn't be importing weapons of any kind, except for stuff we don't yet/can't make on our own or are exotic. But the problem with DRDO is the forces want alternate capabilities cropping up within the private sector, and anything DRDO makes has the higher probability of it ending up with a DPSU instead.
That's true. Most of DRDO's missiles end up being manufactured by DPSUs. In this context the recently opened manufacturing line of the Pinaka MBRL by Solar Industries is very significant.
Multiple class of missiles for the navy is fine. The navy is not affected like the air force and army are since their logistics is largely centralised.
Multiple class is alright, necessary even. But multiple missiles of the same class is problematic.
Private companies are doing quite well though. Bharat Forge is developing gas turbines for example. They can go about it the same way BA did with Brahmos, start with OEM tech, followed by indigenisation of critical sensors. Their starting point is also higher than what DRDO was back in the late 90s. For example, it's not difficult for Tonbo to supply the imaging seeker to L&T or others for such a missile. Inertial navigation for guidance is not difficult to develop at this time.
They have some tech that is useful for making guided munitions. But they need to form partnerships & hire manpower that can design weapons. Either ex-DRDO or from abroad.
No point in restricting ourselves. The 300Km restriction allows the enemy to reliably pick up the launch platform since it brings it within LoS of air surveillance. Bring in indirect pathing with waypoints and the range decreases further. So doubling the range of the NG is the minimum necessary to keep even the air-based platform away from horizon.
I thought the whole point of the NG is that it offers the performance of the restricted Brahmos-1 but at a smaller size & weight. Thus the NG could be integrated to smaller ships with inclined launcher or VLS set up. Can range be doubled without increasing size & weight ? I was thinking 450km but 600km seems a bit too much.

Also there will be questions as to whether smaller corvettes have radars that can acquire targets at such ranges.
Also, they are planning to make an AWACS-killer out of it, which should also have a minimum range of 500Km or so, but will likely be a lot more than that.
Oh right. There is that.

An VLR-AAM would have to be significantly lighter than the Brahmos-A. The Brahmos-A is ~2.5 tons in weight. They have to shed more than 1 ton of weight to be a usable VLR-AAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Multiple class is alright, necessary even. But multiple missiles of the same class is problematic.

We are a zoo after all. Can't help it.

The MoD+DPSU nexus won't allow the private sector to flourish. So the forces will have to go about it in a roundabout manner to get what they want. The forces can't afford to get stuck with just one supplier even if the supplier is Indian. Our accountability standards are way too poor for a single vendor.

I thought the whole point of the NG is that it offers the performance of the restricted Brahmos-1 but at a smaller size & weight. Thus the NG could be integrated to smaller ships with inclined launcher or VLS set up. Can range be doubled without increasing size & weight ? I was thinking 450km but 600km seems a bit too much.

Also there will be questions as to whether smaller corvettes have radars that can acquire targets at such ranges.

Doesn't matter what class of ship, destroyer or corvette or even smaller missile boats, they all need OTH capability for targeting, be it OTH radars, sub-surface, air or space surveillance. It's impossible for these ships to target outside the LoS of their own sensors. Some ships, especially Chinese, do carry OTH radars, but they are not very useful since they are only used to detect targets at shorter ranges than what's necessary. It's actually why the USN didn't even bother getting a better ship-launched AShM than the Harpoon for decades, to the point their ships did not even carry it anymore. They instead modified the SM-2 for anti-shipping role. Only now they are getting the modified Tomahawk and ship-launched LRASM.

Range can be doubled from its earlier figure since the engine power is half that of Brahmos-1 (4 tons thrust), hence requiring half the fuel load to move half the weight. And it's a brand new engine design, so it can incorporate new technologies with greater fuel efficiency and much smaller and lighter electronics, along with a lighter airframe designed for greater lift to drag than Brahmos-1. The Brahmos-1 seeker weighs 85-90Kg and is obscenely big, perhaps the Brahmos NG seeker can weigh 1/3rd of that, with a similar size reduction. I believe that even with the same warhead, the Brahmos NG can potentially carry as much or more fuel as percentage of volume compared to Brahmos-1.

Oh right. There is that.

An VLR-AAM would have to be significantly lighter than the Brahmos-A. The Brahmos-A is ~2.5 tons in weight. They have to shed more than 1 ton of weight to be a usable VLR-AAM.

Brahmos NG is said to be less than 1.5T, the air-launched version with a smaller booster could be much lighter. I'm betting on 1.1-1.2T. Especially so since its meant to be carried by the LCA Mk1A. But, while being lighter helps in terms of agility and numbers, what will be more important is speed. A sustained mach 4.5+ will be very useful against AWACS compared to its earlier advertised mach 3.5. As long as Brahmos-NG comes with 600Km and mach 4.5, it will be well worth the wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker
Aug 23, 2021
25
92
India
Just some notes:

1. Can't make heads or tails of what Astra Mk1 UT is from all the tenders in it's catgeory. Is it just a project code to track further improvements and testing of the original Astra? Or is it a new project? It feels like a new one because it still seems to be in integration testing and HILS testing stage.

2. From tenders : Some new torpedo from NSTL/NPOL is going to have a pumpjet propulsor with two fibre props.

3. Astra Mk-II is under final pre-testing integration

4. ADA/HAL are working on single titanium block milling for AMCA similar to F-35. Midhani annual report states that they delivered test blocks in February.

5. Next VL-SRSAM tests will be in the final canisterised configuration, the earlier ones weren't. The radar is still a mystery though but BEL confirmed delivery of few prototypes in their Annual Report. But why? Weren't they supposed to integrate it with MF-STAR? Is this new radar for the Kamorta like vessels? Does that mean Revathi will be replaced with the new one? What will be the future of Fregat vessels then?

6. My opinion/theory: Brahmos-NG and Brahmos-II have neither been funded nor being worked on. They are just proposals from Brahmos corp to keep themselves relevant. MoD and Russia doesn't seem to have signed any agreement for these two. Neither DRDL or NPO Mashinostreynia seem to be working on them. I feel, these projects will disappear as STAR gets tested and HSTDV confidence grows. Both will get full desi projects without involving Russia

I will post such notes just to get wider inputs on some observerations and thought process I am going through.

-A newbie on this forum
 
Last edited:

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,350
8,834
Bangalore
Just some notes:

1. Can't make heads or tails of what Astra Mk1 UT is from all the tenders in it's catgeory. Is it just a project code to track further improvements and testing of the original Astra? Or is it a new project? It feels like a new one because it still seems to be in integration testing and HILS testing stage.

2. From tenders : Some new torpedo from NSTL/NPOL is going to have a pumpjet propulsor with two fibre props.

3. Astra Mk-II is under final pre-testing integration

4. ADA/HAL are working on single titanium block milling for AMCA similar to F-35. Midhani annual report states that they delivered test blocks in February.

5. Next VL-SRSAM tests will be in the final canisterised configuration, the earlier ones weren't. The radar is still a mystery though but BEL confirmed delivery of few prototypes in their Annual Report. But why? Weren't they supposed to integrate it with MF-STAR? Is this new radar for the Kamorta like vessels? Does that mean Revathi will be replaced with the new one? What will be the future of Fregat vessels then?

6. My opinion/theory: Brahmos-NG and Brahmos-II have neither been funded nor being worked on. They are just proposals from Brahmos corp to keep themselves relevant. MoD and Russia doesn't seem to have signed any agreement for these two. Neither DRDL or NPO Mashinostreynia seem to be working on them. I feel, these projects will disappear as STAR gets tested and HSTDV confidence grows. Both will get full desi projects without involving Russia

I will post such notes just to get wider inputs on some observerations and thought process I am going through.

-A newbie on this forum
Welcome to the forum.

You are on point on most of these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gearedcombustor

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
I will post such notes just to get wider inputs on some observerations and thought process I am going through.

-A newbie on this forum
Welcome to the forum. Keep posting.:)
1. Can't make heads or tails of what Astra Mk1 UT is from all the tenders in it's catgeory. Is it just a project code to track further improvements and testing of the original Astra? Or is it a new project? It feels like a new one because it still seems to be in integration testing and HILS testing stage.
The Mk1 UT is a newish project. The UT borrows tech heavily from the Mk1 but there are newer bits of technology coming about.

Remember the Astra Mk-1 was supposed to have a IR seeker based version. Design optimization studies of the IR guided Astra proved that the Mk-1's airframe is not the most efficient for the role of CCM. Which is why the IAF is going ahead with the ASRAAM as the new CCM. The Astra Mk-1 with the IR seeker will be a medium to long range missile.

DRDO is also making the RF guided VL-SRSAM for the Navy. Although the VL-SRSAM draws heavily from the Astra Mk-1, it also has design inputs from other DRDO SAMs like the QRSAM. There is a significant possibility that the Navy would be interested in an IR guided VL-SRSAM too. Imagine if the airframe of the RF guided & IR guided VL-SRSAM were the same. That would mean the same manufacturing line can be used to make the missiles & the same VLMs can be used for both the missiles. Obviously it makes sense for the Navy.

Now imagine the IR guided Astra, IR guided VL-SRSAM & the RF guided VLSRSAM had the same airframe. That's what DRDO is attempting to do with the Astra Mk-1 UT. I read somewhere that UT stands for Upgraded Tail. The key difference between the Astra Mk-1 & the VL-SRSAM is that the later has JVC, the former doesn't. That's not the only difference but the most important one. They are going to put a JVC on the Astra Mk-1's tail.

It is important to remember that this is still a design study. The requirements for a IR guided SAM & a IR guided AAM are different. Thus if the inclusion of the JVC somehow depletes aerodynamic performance in AAM role then nothing may come out of this project .Still it is encouraging to see DRDO trying to standardize production lines & launch systems.
2. From tenders : Some new torpedo from NSTL/NPOL is going to have a pumpjet propulsor with two fibre props.
Yes the new torpedo is called "Jalastra". It is a variation of the ALWT. It will have longer operational range at a higher speed.
3. Astra Mk-II is under final pre-testing integration
Yes & so is the XR-SAM. TBRL has been ground testing the booster for the XR-SAM. It seems the 1st flight isn't far from now.
4. ADA/HAL are working on single titanium block milling for AMCA similar to F-35. Midhani annual report states that they delivered test blocks in February.
Interesting. I didn't know this.
5. Next VL-SRSAM tests will be in the final canisterised configuration, the earlier ones weren't. The radar is still a mystery though but BEL confirmed delivery of few prototypes in their Annual Report. But why? Weren't they supposed to integrate it with MF-STAR? Is this new radar for the Kamorta like vessels? Does that mean Revathi will be replaced with the new one? What will be the future of Fregat vessels then?
The radar BEL delivered is a fire control radar, not a multifunction radar. Since the ships that will integrate the VL-SRSAM has very different primary radars going for a dedicated FCR is a good option.

DRDO is going to integrate the VL-SRSAM to the MF-STAR. But what about ships that don't have the MF-STAR ? This new radar from BEL is for those ships.
6. My opinion/theory: Brahmos-NG and Brahmos-II have neither been funded nor being worked on. They are just proposals from Brahmos corp to keep themselves relevant. MoD and Russia doesn't seem to have signed any agreement for these two. Neither DRDL or NPO Mashinostreynia seem to be working on them. I feel, these projects will disappear as STAR gets tested and HSTDV confidence grows. Both will get full desi projects without involving Russia
I agree about the Brahmos-2.

I don't agree with the NG. That has been in the works for a while & has received funding from the Navy. I don't know if the IA and IAF are funding it though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

Chain Smoker

Well-Known member
Mar 2, 2020
744
592
india
Welcome to the forum. Keep posting.:)

The Mk1 UT is a newish project. The UT borrows tech heavily from the Mk1 but there are newer bits of technology coming about.

Remember the Astra Mk-1 was supposed to have a IR seeker based version. Design optimization studies of the IR guided Astra proved that the Mk-1's airframe is not the most efficient for the role of CCM. Which is why the IAF is going ahead with the ASRAAM as the new CCM. The Astra Mk-1 with the IR seeker will be a medium to long range missile.

DRDO is also making the RF guided VL-SRSAM for the Navy. Although the VL-SRSAM draws heavily from the Astra Mk-1, it also has design inputs from other DRDO SAMs like the QRSAM. There is a significant possibility that the Navy would be interested in an IR guided VL-SRSAM too. Imagine if the airframe of the RF guided & IR guided VL-SRSAM were the same. That would mean the same manufacturing line can be used to make the missiles & the same VLMs can be used for both the missiles. Obviously it makes sense for the Navy.

Now imagine the IR guided Astra, IR guided VL-SRSAM & the RF guided VLSRSAM had the same airframe. That's what DRDO is attempting to do with the Astra Mk-1 UT. I read somewhere that UT stands for Upgraded Tail. The key difference between the Astra Mk-1 & the VL-SRSAM is that the later has JVC, the former doesn't. That's not the only difference but the most important one. They are going to put a JVC on the Astra Mk-1's tail.

It is important to remember that this is still a design study. The requirements for a IR guided SAM & a IR guided AAM are different. Thus if the inclusion of the JVC somehow depletes aerodynamic performance in AAM role then nothing may come out of this project .Still it is encouraging to see DRDO trying to standardize production lines & launch systems.

Yes the new torpedo is called "Jalastra". It is a variation of the ALWT. It will have longer operational range at a higher speed.

Yes & so is the XR-SAM. TBRL has been ground testing the booster for the XR-SAM. It seems the 1st flight isn't far from now.

Interesting. I didn't know this.

The radar BEL delivered is a fire control radar, not a multifunction radar. Since the ships that will integrate the VL-SRSAM has very different primary radars going for a dedicated FCR is a good option.

DRDO is going to integrate the VL-SRSAM to the MF-STAR. But what about ships that don't have the MF-STAR ? This new radar from BEL is for those ships.

I agree about the Brahmos-2.

I don't agree with the NG. That has been in the works for a while & has received funding from the Navy. I don't know if the IA and IAF are funding it though.
1. A2A missiles can have jet vanes like MICA.


2. There was one report from hemant kumar rout that astra mk2 will have TVC.


3. Indian Airforce has confirmed interest in BRAHMOS-NG missiles for 400 in numbers costing around Rs 8,000 crore to be delivered in next five years.
 
Last edited:

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,946
Tripura, NE, India
1. A2A missiles can have jet vanes like MICA.
Sure they can. But how much weight addition will that cause ? If we reduce the weight of the vanes will they be able to survive the ablation damages ? There are always questions like that. Hence the need for testing.
2. There was one report from hemant kumar rout that astra mk2 will have TVC.
What kind of TVC ? Jet vane or nozzle actuation ? Since most our missiles use jet vane control it makes sense to go with that. That way the Mk-1 UT project's results can be used for Mk2
3. Indian Airforce has confirmed interest in BRAHMOS-NG missiles for 400 in numbers costing around Rs 8,000 crore to be delivered in next five years.
So IN & IAF are in. Anything from IA ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker