Queries !!

[plugwater]

We shall use this thread to ask any defense related questions.

Here is my question, we have active protection system in armored vehicles like Trophy(Israel) and arena(Russia) and in ships we are using close in weapon system(CIWS) for hard kill. we are using only soft kill systems in helicopters and aircrafts, why cant we use hard kill systems in helicopter and aircrafts ? If there are no hard kill system available can we develop one ?

 

[nrj]

Here is my question, we have active protection system in armored vehicles like Trophy(Israel) and arena(Russia) and in ships we are using close in weapon system(CIWS) for hard kill. we are using only soft kill systems in helicopters and aircrafts, why cant we use hard kill systems in helicopter and aircrafts ? If there are no hard kill system available can we develop one ?

Thats a very growing concern these days. Those MANPADS, RPGs & small arms are very cheap easily available to Terrorists, separatists taking down Helos, aircrafts in substantial proportion. US & West forces suffered many rotorcraft losses in Afgan war.

Now I am not sure how the classification can be done on "Hard-kill" & "soft-kill" systems among countermeasures or protection solutions on these Helos, aircrafts. But recently as the need grew many new effective Defense systems are developed by US, Israel against such so-termed "Dumb threats" for Helos/aircrafts.

Here is look into US approach --

Infrared countermeasures

Technology to combat the threat of sophisticated infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles has come further than efforts to counter "dumb" bullets and RPGs.

Many U.S. military aircraft are equipped with these systems: the Common Missile Warning System, which uses ultraviolet sensors to detect missile launches, track them and launch flares that confuse the missile's infrared seeker, and Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures, which uses jamming lasers to misdirect infrared-guided missiles.

Matt Schroeder, manager of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said funding of these systems has been "money well spent," as MANPADS have appeared in arms caches in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan.

Supersonic, subsonic rounds

Meanwhile, Defense and Army officials are taking aim at RPG and small-arms fire attacks against helicopters. Until recently, the Army's main investment against this has been aircraft survivability equipment like adding additional armor, redundant critical systems and more crash-worthy fuel tanks.

The DARPA and BBN Technologies have been developing a device that detects such attacks and locates the shooter, and it was installed on a UH-60L Blackhawk for testing in February. In March congressional testimony, DARPA director Regina E. Dugan said several more systems would be deployed Afghanistan for operational testing.

Called the Helicopter Alert and Threat Termination system, or HALTT-A, the system uses 16 sensors mounted on the helicopter's fuselage to detect the supersonic shock wave caused by firing bullet.

BBN also makes the similar Boomerang ground acoustic shot detection system, which also hones in on the sounds of bullets being fired. That system indicates the "o'clock" azimuth of incoming small-arms fire, announces that direction using a recorded voice and indicates the range and elevation on an LED screen display.

Larue said situational awareness is crucial so that pilots can take evasive action to protect themselves, their passengers and the airframe. Often, aviators are unaware they have been shot at until they inspect the airframe after landing.

"We don't want a pilot to walk around the aircraft and say, 'Holy smokes, I was fired at because I have three or four bullet holes in his tail boom,'" Larue said. "We want him to know exactly when that took place so he can react, so he doesn't have to come home and find out an hour after the mission."

Rest story here - Hard to protect helos from insurgent RPG fire - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

The Isralies are also coming up with their solution. Maybe IA/IAF should take it for trial or some sort of JV can be continued.

IMI offers complete self-defence solutions for Fighters, Helicopters, commercial and transport Aircrafts against IR, laser and radar guided missiles. IMI is the Israel Air Force's centre of expertise for countermeasures. The battle-proven experience gained in this relationship led to development of a wide range of highly reliable and effective expendable countermeasures and systems.

Expendable Countermeasures
"¢ FG-3, FG-6 & FG-9 IR Decoy flares – combat proven. IMI equivalents to M206, MJU-7B & MJU-10B flares.

"¢ Multi-Blu provides triple the helicopter protection of standard IR flares in the weight/volume envelope of a single FG-3 flare.

"¢ CG-17 (RR-170A/AL equiv.) like all IMI chaff products hides aircraft and ships from radar detection and provides protection against radar guided missiles. SAMP Countermeasure Dispensing systems (CMDS)

"¢ Threat adaptive dispensing systems with 16 simultaneously available firing programs.

"¢ Ideal for aircraft upgrade programs or as original equipment in new airframes.

"¢ Highly reliable, cost effective, affords full integration with aircraft systems.

SPARK-2000 Self Protection advanced Retrofit Kit

"¢ Cost effective conversion kit for upgrading existing CMDS to stateof- the-art level with threat adaptive capabilities.

AIRMOR Modular and Adaptable Protection Suite

"¢ Autonomous system incorporates CMDS, expendable chaff & flares countermeasures and passive UVSB Missile Warning System - radar or laser warning optional.

"¢ Multi-mode management control system integrates and analyzes information while activating the optimal counter-measures against the relevant threat.

Flight Guard Airborne Self-Protection Suite

"¢ Protects passenger aircraft against shoulder- launched missile attacks. The completely automatic system needs no pilot intervention.

"¢ With its modular design, each system and sub-system can be customized to meet specific user requirements while assuring future add-on capabilities.

http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/34957239-5D65-4E10-A3D7-EE336AEFC619/0/sod_imi.pdf

Here is link to a thread I posted sometime back - http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/american-defence-forum/12043.htm

A new device, called Boldstroke, is the solution to a problem the Army does not want to have: the threat of advanced shoulder-fired missiles to American helicopters.

There's a laser-guided antiaircraft missile jammer sitting on the table of the conference room in the office. It comes in a medium-size box, weighing in at about 30 pounds, topped with a clear hemisphere housing a prominent mirror mounted on a 360-degree gimbal. Peering inside the dome, a viewer can see a network of other mirrors that bounce light from a laser housed below, directing the beam to the main lens affixed to the gimbal.

By the end of 2009 BAE delivered its first Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATRICM) to the Army for use on its CH-47 Chinooks. ATRICM fires a pencil-thin multiband laser at frequencies that blind IR seekers scanning for targets in those same frequencies. The Pentagon recently confirmed to Aviation Week that the defensive system thwarted an IR missile attack on a Chinook, and BAE officials tell PM that the attack occurred within weeks of weeks of ATIRM's arrival in Iraq.

BAE has created Boldstroke to improve on ATIRCM. It's lighter, has fewer moving optical parts and uses mirrors instead of a physical "light pipe" to shoot its laser. Instead of three boxes, the entire unit is housed in one box. A helicopter with a Boldstroke system mounted on either side of the helicopter would have 360 degrees of protection.

I think these new counter-measures against dumb-fires & shoulder-mounted missiles should assure Helo's survivability. As what I have observed, most of these new solutions give opportunity to pilot to evade the incoming attack by allowing larger response time window.

 

[borgking82]

Queries !!

The Brahmos and Nirbhay cruise missiles have turbojet engines. My questions are: which labs under DRDO developing them? Are they the same people developing the Kaveri engine? If so why can't they use the knowledge gained from the cruise missile projects to build a new engine that'll replace the Kaveri? Plus does DRDO even do project planning and management at all? It seems to me that by the time DRDO develops a fighter jet engine, the West and others would be using more advanced engines like the Pulsed Detonation Engine.

 

[ppgj]

We shall use this thread to ask any defense related questions.

Here is my question, we have active protection system in armored vehicles like Trophy(Israel) and arena(Russia) and in ships we are using close in weapon system(CIWS) for hard kill. we are using only soft kill systems in helicopters and aircrafts, why cant we use hard kill systems in helicopter and aircrafts ? If there are no hard kill system available can we develop one ?

active APS in tanks is what are you talking about??

Tanks because of their heavy armour are relatively slow moving, less maneurable and have to encounter ground obstacles dictated by the geography they operate in and unless the air space is secure they are sitting ducks for helis who are their nemesis apart from the rogue and regular MANPAD operators firing ATGMs (a problem which can't be solved easily) and IFVs from vantage points at weak spots of the tank.

hence the APS - for self protection - though, they would still be vulnerable to attack helicopters due to their mobility being restricted by the geography.

Attack Helis OTOH are pretty well protected and are the predators for the tanks and they carry ATGMs/cannons - cued, by HMD, in some - and are protected by EW suites with RWRs and laser/missile warners, CDMS, IR countermeasures, IR reduction systems besides FLIR. also a point to be noted - these attack helis like the LCH enter the field when the airspace is secure and most of these have a radar to boot which are either mast mounted or nose mounted. besides they operate in the air with so to say no obstacles and are highly maneurable and operate beyond the range of the ATGMs. having said that are they invulnerable?? definitely not. because the danger from MANPADs and guns which are operated individually by either rogue elements or rogues aided by the enemy military positioned at unsecured vantage points are still a threat. case in point A'stan where US and allied forces are having tough time operating these helis or even a Kargill like situation. unless the whole area is cleansed of these rogues, this problem will exist. better INTEL can partly address this but can't eliminate it and this is even more relevant in a scenario where the fight is not between regular armies/forces but between the regulars and rogues, a scenario akin to civil war - like in A'stan. you are challenged and you take the challenge. you may win most but will also lose some.

same with aircrafts although the incomparable speed puts them in a different class altogether from that of the attack helicopters.

so what other need is there for the helis/aircrafts to have these APS sort of systems when they already have more than that??

or may be i did not get/understand your question.

PS : however technology keeps changing and we will see better systems in the days to come.

 

[plugwater]

Correct me if i am wrong soft kills systems include like Jammers, Decoys etc if a hostile missile is launched towards a vehicle means the countermeasure system tries to disable the rocket or missile by IR jammers/decoys and if the soft kill system fails the last attempt is made by hard kill systems which is to impact the hostile rocket with the another countermeasure rocket. So the hard kill system is basically shooting down a hostile missile with another rocket or gun. This is what being used in armored vehicles and MBTs.

But what i am trying to understand is why there is only soft kill systems are used in aircraft against SAM or AAM. Its not so difficult to add a small countermeasure rockets or a gun especially to target the incoming missiles in aircrafts. Trophy active protection system has been developed in a way there will no danger to the infantry walking near the armored vehicles so it rules out the danger of shrapnel caused during the hard kill hitting the aircrafts.

 

[black eagle]

Will the AAD have one missile per launcher only & will the missile tube look like a cage rather than a tube?

 

[plugwater]

Will the AAD have one missile per launcher only & will the missile tube look like a cage rather than a tube?

Most probably this kind of launch system will be used

Credit sayareakd

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Queries !!

The Brahmos and Nirbhay cruise missiles have turbojet engines. My questions are: which labs under DRDO developing them? Are they the same people developing the Kaveri engine? If so why can't they use the knowledge gained from the cruise missile projects to build a new engine that'll replace the Kaveri? Plus does DRDO even do project planning and management at all? It seems to me that by the time DRDO develops a fighter jet engine, the West and others would be using more advanced engines like the Pulsed Detonation Engine.

Brahmos is not a turbofan but a ramjet engine,turbofan are relatively cheap and can be mass produced. I don 't know if we are working on pulse detonation engines but we are working on scramjets which will be used in brahmos 2 and other missiles as well as vehicles like avatar.

 

[black eagle]

Most probably this kind of launch system will be used

Credit sayareakd

even then it seems the 'cage' tube will remain.

 

[plugwater]

even then it seems the 'cage' tube will remain.

Nothing is confirmed. We need to wait till its induction to see the actual configuration.

 

[plugwater]

Before asking this question let me clarify few things regarding sold fuel and liquid fuel.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages for both solid and liquid fuel

Solid fuel

Less complex engine
Thrust is low
Can used in rugged conditions
Very easy to transport, maintain and store
Cannot be throttled up or control once it starts burning

Liquid fuel

Liquid fuel are much more complicated than solid fuel
Very complex Engine
Needs to kept at low temperatures
Have 2 times more thrust than solid fuel
Can be throttled up and control during the flight

So in most of the countries solid fuel is used in missiles and liquid fuel in rockets. In some satellite launch vehicles boosters in first stage uses solid as its fuel. So mixed propulsion is already in use for rockets can it be used in missiles too ?
My idea is we can use liquid fuel in first stage because of its higher thrust and solid fuel for 2nd and 3rd stages in missiles.
Any other ideas for mixed propellant are also welcome!

 

[EagleOne]

Before asking this question let me clarify few things regarding sold fuel and liquid fuel.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages for both solid and liquid fuel

Solid fuel

Less complex engine
Thrust is low
Can used in rugged conditions
Very easy to transport, maintain and store
Cannot be throttled up or control once it starts burning

Liquid fuel

Liquid fuel are much more complicated than solid fuel
Very complex Engine
Needs to kept at low temperatures
Have 2 times more thrust than solid fuel
Can be throttled up and control during the flight

So in most of the countries solid fuel is used in missiles and liquid fuel in rockets. In some satellite launch vehicles boosters in first stage uses solid as its fuel. So mixed propulsion is already in use for rockets can it be used in missiles too ?
My idea is we can use liquid fuel in first stage because of its higher thrust and solid fuel for 2nd and 3rd stages in missiles.
Any other ideas for mixed propellant are also welcome!

mixed propulsion ..in missiles ...well it can be used but their are certain limitations of mixed propulsions to be used in missiles
in case of rockets the time of launch is fixed and it can be postponed if any technical sang occurs it is not that important
but in case of missiles they are need to ready to fire state if we use liquid propulsion in missile they need regular checking and replacement & as u said liquid fuel system has lot of moving parts so their is higher rate of failure more over and important thing is that the Oxidiser should be kept in extremely cooled condition and need continuous monitoring other wise it will fail to burn up

so maintainence of solid stage missiles in tel vehicles in ready to fire condition is easy and economical then using liquid fuel
because liquid fuel system needs maintains and replacement of fuel after certain period of time where as in solid fuels it can be stored for years

 

[plugwater]

mixed propulsion ..in missiles ...well it can be used but their are certain limitations of mixed propulsions to be used in missiles
in case of rockets the time of launch is fixed and it can be postponed if any technical sang occurs it is not that important
but in case of missiles they are need to ready to fire state if we use liquid propulsion in missile they need regular checking and replacement & as u said liquid fuel system has lot of moving parts so their is higher rate of failure more over and important thing is that the Oxidiser should be kept in extremely cooled condition and need continuous monitoring other wise it will fail to burn up

so maintainence of solid stage missiles in tel vehicles in ready to fire condition is easy and economical then using liquid fuel
because liquid fuel system needs maintains and replacement of fuel after certain period of time where as in solid fuels it can be stored for years

Exactly i agree with everything you mentioned but the idea is to make a mixed propellant missile. There are liquid propellant missiles too in other countries in fact Russia is making a replacement for R-36 ICBM which is liquid propellant. So in order to increase the capability of a missile we can use both solid and liquid propellant in various stages. I dont know how Russia is going to maintain the R-36 replacement(liquid propellant) but we can conclude they have found a way to use liquid propellant effectively that is why they are changing the propellant.

 

[EagleOne]

Exactly i agree with everything you mentioned but the idea is to make a mixed propellant missile. There are liquid propellant missiles too in other countries in fact Russia is making a replacement for R-36 ICBM which is liquid propellant. So in order to increase the capability of a missile we can use both solid and liquid propellant in various stages. I dont know how Russia is going to maintain the R-36 replacement(liquid propellant) but we can conclude they have found a way to use liquid propellant effectively that is why they are changing the propellant.

yes research's are going in countries like US ,Russia in this directions they are figuring out possibilities of applying liquid propulsion to the final stage of their missiles .. this still takes some times to get productive
but till now no one yet confirmed advanced liquid propulsion technology in their missiles officially.

 

[EagleOne]

surprisingly both countries hinted they are developing this kind of technology in dec 2009

 

[plugwater]

yes research's are going in countries like US ,Russia in this directions they are figuring out possibilities of applying liquid propulsion to the final stage of their missiles .. this still takes some times to get productive
but till now no one yet confirmed advanced liquid propulsion technology in their missiles officially.

SS-19 Stiletto Russian ICBM uses liquid propulsion which is still in service. So can liquid propulsion be used in missiles is out of the question i guess. We may have to wait for the mixed propulsion only.

 

[plugwater]

surprisingly both countries hinted they are developing this kind of technology in dec 2009

Russia already have liquid propellant missiles. I have no idea about USA though. Can you give some details about USA liquid propulsion missile ?

 

[EagleOne]

SS-19 Stiletto Russian ICBM uses liquid propulsion which is still in service. So can liquid propulsion be used in missiles is out of the question i guess. We may have to wait for the mixed propulsion only.

yes liqud prop is used .....it need frequent monitoring and maintains they cannot be left as solid propelled missile for long time in inventory .which is costly affair ,failure rate and problems are more in liquid propelled engines

 

[EagleOne]

Russia already have liquid propellant missiles. I have no idea about USA though. Can you give some details about USA liquid propulsion missile ?

titan 1,2 - http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/titan.htm
SM-65 Atlas-dual use

Minuteman I- was the first solid propelled missile developed in US

 

[plugwater]

yes liqud prop is used .....it need frequent monitoring and maintains they cannot be left as solid propelled missile for long time in inventory .which is costly affair ,failure rate and problems are more in liquid propelled engines

But still there are lot of advantages in using liquid propulsion just because of the ability to throttle up the missile can be made more maneuverable and also can be made smaller because of thrust. That is why asked for mixed propulsion based on the advantages of both propulsion the type of propulsion can be used in various stages as needed.
Maintaining a missile regiment is always a costly affair so with some extra maintenance we can have a deadly missile with both propellant. I dont know about the Failure rate because most of the rockets are using liquid propulsion. It is costly but the liquid propulsion is the most effective one.