Nirbhay Cruise Missile Development

[Steven Rogers]

Cross post from IDF PARIKRAMA

Some small snippets

Nirbhay Missile

1. I had written here about the new guidance system work by Israel given to India with full TOT.
2. The first trial of that was done in a limited test of Nirbhay Missile at 0.6M (much lower than 0.8-0.85M ) for a ~650km
3. Israel worked on nirbhay in secret, guidance operations and targeting sensors were changed among other things.
4. This was a sample work for them the work was done along with Indian scientists.
5. In total the work to be done over multiple tests will catapult Nirbhay to a flight time of approx 90 Minutes and sustained speed of 0.8M over 80% of the flight.
6. The targeted range is approx 1500km to be tested step by step.
7. Proposed Cruising mode over 70 Minutes is targeted to cover approx 1150+ km other than boost and final engagement phase covering other 20 minutes.
8. Warhead design is further minutarised for more mission specific needs.
9. There are small changes in the body of the missile as well with trimming of wingspan marginally and optimising certain other aspects.
10. Now the whole missile and canister together is just under 1500 kg.

Rafale

• MOD had suggested a CBU completely Built Unit procurement for Rafale M owing to time needed to operationalize the DRAL facility.
• IN is insisting on MII proposition for additional benefit for MIC.
• IN has also written that beyond MRCBF it's looking at additional Rafale Procurement as well.
• In the discussion, IN clearly said it has the capacity and need of Rafale numbers which can standalone warrant a MII line for itself.
• MOD will internally discuss and call IAF and IN for joint discussion on the same.

Safranised Kaveri

• The present Safran core installed had given Safranised Kaveri an unstable thrust of 6x/9x.
• The step 1 is stable 65/98 and step 2 which is to be officially targeted to be deployed is 72/110.
• A further discussion with Saab on fitting this engine on Gripen E had resulted in a mixed response.
• Safranised Kaveri is much too large for unmodified Gripen so major modification is needed.
• When asked for the same , saab said it will take time.
• It has requested India to first finalize the design and operationalize the engine and then give us 5years to modify the bay and equalize the weight, etc etc to start certification process for the Safranised Kaveri Gripen E
• OTOH F16 is indeed a better host for that engine since the engine willcome with stealth features"Lower IR read" among other features.
• The F16 has enough space to play around and let that engine breath properly, the air intakes are big enough for uprated Safranised Kaveri engine also.
• F16 design is said to be an easier integrator for the engine where as the Gripen would need years and years of testing and redesign.
• The target rate for the engine is 110 with Afterburner but it has not yet reached that.
• Its high altitude testing will be done in France but stall test here in India.
• The engine is expected to have similar life values as Russia engines in 72/110Kn format and 65/98 is targeted to be at par with ECO pack like features.
• It's said that both these engines are targeted to be like M88-4 and M88-3 like needs, life and serviceability.
• A separate ECO pack for each is planned to enhance its life , serviceability and maintainence perspectives as much as possible.

And the reason for believing Parikarma's quotes.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Turbojet can't be used on subsonic cruise missile. Turbojet and turbofan are extremely different. Turbojet is you traditional jet motor which uses solid fuel and solely relies on the thrust from the fuel ejection to fly. Due to this, high speed can be achieved by keeping such kind of fuel that is expelled quickly. Ramjet is another form of Turbojet which uses solid fuel but has no solid oxidizer mixed with the fuel. Instead, oxygen is sucked from the air to burn the fuel.

Turbofan is an engine that burns liquid fuel like kerosene, ether etc to rotate the fan and not eject fuel with high momentum. Something like a helicopter fan but smaller. The fan sucks the air and then pushes it back with greater force to propel the vehicle. Here, the fuel is not ejected directly but the fan merely pushes the air back faster - called bypass. The cruise missiles have high bypass while jet engine has low bypass. Cruise missiles are more fuel efficient than jet aircraft. The after burner in jet engine works something like a turbojet by wasting huge fuel

The result of this difference is that turbofan can't fly much faster and is subsonic. Turbojet, however works well when supersonic.

Nirbhay couldn't have been turbojet at all. It is mandatory for it to be a turbofan. Turbofan for cruise missiles have no link with Kaveri engine. Though both are turbofan, Nirbhay uses 4kN thrust while Kaveri is 90kN. The difference in thrust is so huge that Nirbhay turbofan is far easier than Kaveri engine. The problem of single crystal blades, melting points, super alloy etc doesn't arise. 4kN thrust has minimal temperature or pressure, even for the smaller size of Nirbhay and hence easily accomplished.

There should be no doubt that Nirbhay used Turbofan engines

Miniaturizing a turbofan is an equally tough task...... Yeah metallurgy of today is better, but still it's not a cup cake baking.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Tomahawk uses turbofan engine of 3-4kN thrust

Tw of Tomahawk engine is better than the Manik..... That's why we need to reduce weight and increase thrust.

 

[Kay]

Tomahawk uses turbofan engine of 3-4kN thrust

I was referring to standoff missiles like JASSM. But turbofans are more fuel efficient and better suited for loitering.

 

[Kshithij]

Tw of Tomahawk engine is better than the Manik..... That's why we need to reduce weight and increase thrust.

Yeah cruise missile turbofan is so difficult that USA just gave away the technology to Japan, Korea, Turkey. Even Pakistan could make BABUR missile.

 

[archie]

Turbojet is you traditional jet motor which uses solid fuel

Turbo jet also uses kerosene or Jp4 or similar.. Solid fuel is used only for Rocket engines and used for certain types of missiles.

Concorde used Turbo jet engines and Russian Tupolov TU -40 used turbo fan engines Other than that the post is engine spec

 

[sayareakd]

View attachment 21501

From FB fan page,...................

Fins looked same. BTW posted this type of pic on same day.

 

[sayareakd]

What happen to other tests???

They are not coming

 

[shiphone]

Turbojet can't be used on subsonic cruise missile.
Turbojet and turbofan are extremely different.
Turbojet is you traditional jet motor which uses solid fuel and solely relies on the thrust from the fuel ejection to fly. Due to this, high speed can be achieved by keeping such kind of fuel that is expelled quickly. Ramjet is another form of Turbojet which uses solid fuel but has no solid oxidizer mixed with the fuel. Instead, oxygen is sucked from the air to burn the fuel.

yeah....such incredible BS would be "liked"?

1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

2.

3. rocket motor(both liquid and solid), Turbojet engine, Turbofan Engine on missiles.......

 

[Jagdish58]

Did DRDO use HAL PTAE-7 turbojet or ??

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yeah cruise missile turbofan is so difficult that USA just gave away the technology to Japan, Korea, Turkey. Even Pakistan could make BABUR missile.

Yeah and Babur missile uses Chinese turbofan, Japan has its own RnD and Koreans and turkeys using American engine in their labeling.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Turbojet can't be used on subsonic cruise missile. Turbojet and turbofan are extremely different. Turbojet is you traditional jet motor which uses solid fuel and solely relies on the thrust from the fuel ejection to fly. Due to this, high speed can be achieved by keeping such kind of fuel that is expelled quickly. Ramjet is another form of Turbojet which uses solid fuel but has no solid oxidizer mixed with the fuel. Instead, oxygen is sucked from the air to burn the fuel.

Turbofan is an engine that burns liquid fuel like kerosene, ether etc to rotate the fan and not eject fuel with high momentum. Something like a helicopter fan but smaller. The fan sucks the air and then pushes it back with greater force to propel the vehicle. Here, the fuel is not ejected directly but the fan merely pushes the air back faster - called bypass. The cruise missiles have high bypass while jet engine has low bypass. Cruise missiles are more fuel efficient than jet aircraft. The after burner in jet engine works something like a turbojet by wasting huge fuel

The result of this difference is that turbofan can't fly much faster and is subsonic. Turbojet, however works well when supersonic.

Nirbhay couldn't have been turbojet at all. It is mandatory for it to be a turbofan. Turbofan for cruise missiles have no link with Kaveri engine. Though both are turbofan, Nirbhay uses 4kN thrust while Kaveri is 90kN. The difference in thrust is so huge that Nirbhay turbofan is far easier than Kaveri engine. The problem of single crystal blades, melting points, super alloy etc doesn't arise. 4kN thrust has minimal temperature or pressure, even for the smaller size of Nirbhay and hence easily accomplished.

There should be no doubt that Nirbhay used Turbofan engines

Do you know that the core section of a turbofan is also known as turbojet. And since when Mig21 started using solid fuel... When did Exocet missile (being subsonic) started using turbofan....

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[HariPrasad-1]

So, speed is 800kmph on average. 647km/0.83hr = 800kmph.

But the range is disappointing. It is similar to babur

In second test, it had done 1000+. Every test need not be full range test.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

647 km = 647000 m
50 mins = 3000 sec

Means on average it traveled about 215 meter per second which when converted to mach comes to 0.62 mach. Now on average keeping higher and lower speed on mind, it traveled anywhere in between 0.6 to 0.7 mach on average. So we could safely say that on average its constant speed is somewhere near 0.65 mach.

Hi guys. Mach is referred in two way. One is 1200 KM/Hr and another is some 1030 KM./Hr.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Every AAA & SAM is design to intercept low flying targets ..

SA-6, SA-8, Akash and other AAA practice such on routinely basis ..

Need a discussion on shooting down Pakistani Babur cruise missile.

Need an informed opinions only.

BaraK -8 is Developed For this only

 

[Bahamut]

Proud of the new test
Let hope the develope a anti submarines variety which will help navy in its asw capability

 

[Kshithij]

Hi guys. Mach is referred in two way. One is 1200 KM/Hr and another is some 1030 KM./Hr.

Mach is speed of sound. It is the same definition everywhere. It can change its value at different temperatures and altitude. Mach at sea level at 25 degree celsius in 1224kmph. At 30000-35000 feet altitude it is 1030kmph. Speed of sound is not constant

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Mach is speed of sound. It is the same definition everywhere. It can change its value at different temperatures and altitude. Mach at sea level at 25 degree celsius in 1224kmph. At 30000-35000 feet altitude it is 1030kmph. Speed of sound is not constant

True. That is what I say. Mach no is a ration of speed of object in particular medium to speed of sound in same medium (i.e at particular temperature and pressure). It is that is why very confusing. Better speed be mentioned in KM/hr.

 

[Kshithij]

True. That is what I say. Mach no is a ration of speed of object in particular medium to speed of sound in same medium (i.e at particular temperature and pressure). It is that is why very confusing. Better speed be mentioned in KM/hr.

Be clear that the air viscosity depends on Mach number. Mach is a natural phenomenon and hence is prioritised.

Planes also have varying maximum speed at different altitude. Plane speed is also not fixed. They are just approximate speeds stated. It is indeed convenient to use kmph but that too has its flaws

 

[Kshithij]

yeah....such incredible BS would be "liked"?

1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

2.

3. rocket motor(both liquid and solid), Turbojet engine, Turbofan Engine on missiles.......

You are quoting anti ship missiles that have range of 1km for every 4-5 kg of missile weight. I was speaking of long range subsonic missile. All your missiles has 700kg weight and 150km range!

I made an obvious mistake - i said that turbojet is impossible for subsonic missile. Reality is that it is false as turbojet is capable of subsonic and turbofan capable of supersonic. However, the purpose of turbojet is defeated if it is used in subsonic ones due to its high fuel inefficiency. Its range will be pathetic for its weight. It is possible to use turbojet for subsonic but is FOOLISH and not feasible for long range missile.

Please stop nitpicking on minor details. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be a vocabulary expert. I can make mistakes while conveying my ideas but if it is a minor vocabulary error or minor exaggeration, it is necessary to swallow it and take the spirit of the words.