What's new

49 drones to keep an eye on china and pakistan borders

Looks like the missile was unable to destroy the target at 1:36 :what:

The target seems to me moving undisturbed even after the detonation of the missile

Maybe because the missile miss the target? Why would a missile need to detonate around a target if it can just physically knock off the target.
 
Looks like the missile was unable to destroy the target at 1:36 :what:

The target seems to me moving undisturbed even after the detonation of the missile

That's not a missile hit. It was a bomb(CEP 1.2m) and right on the target.

You need to have a firm grasp of the Chinese language to understand what's going on in the demo.:)
 
Looks like the missile was unable to destroy the target at 1:36 :what:

The target seems to me moving undisturbed even after the detonation of the missile

Maybe because the missile miss the target? Why would a missile need to detonate around a target if it can just physically knock off the target.

Actually SAM/AAM DOES NOT LITERALLY AND PHYCIALLY knock off their target, SAM/AAM are both either usiong Proximity warhead (By blasting some kind of chain out) or kinetic warhead (Sharpnel) to detonate the missile near their target.

For a merge speed of over 3 to 4 machs, believe it or not, if a direct hit between a missile and its target occur, the missle will just punch right thru and its damage is minimal.

Continuous-rod warhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what my brother tells me, he was in the airforce, @gambit would have know more
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe because the missile miss the target? Why would a missile need to detonate around a target if it can just physically knock off the target.

Because missile tests are not done for demonstation to stupid people, but military experts. :laugh:

Lakshya is a pilotless target aircraft ... not the target... stupid. :laugh:

It carried a towed target ... the aircraft itself is recovered, and re-used.

Did you buy IQ in china .... probably that's the reason ... it's cheap but useless.

Actually SAM/AAM DOES NOT LITERALLY AND PHYCIALLY knock off their target, SAM/AAM are both either usiong Proximity warhead (By blasting some kind of chain out) or kinetic warhead (Sharpnel) to detonate the missile near their target.

For a merge speed of over 3 to 4 machs, believe it or not, if a direct heat between a missile and its target occur, the missle will just punch right thru and its damage is minimal.

Continuous-rod warhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what my brother tells me, he was in the airforce, @gambit would have know more

The "proximity" is literally the target itself .. sire.
The "proximity fuse" is to tell the warhead "when to explode" -- i.e. when it is practically next to the target (or close enough to destroy the target).

Read above, and you'll know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "proximity" is literally the target itself .. sire.
The "proximity fuse" is to tell the warhead "when to explode" -- i.e. when it is practically next to the target (or close enough to destroy the target).

Read above, and you'll know.

This is pretty much what I said...
 
Maybe because the missile miss the target? Why would a missile need to detonate around a target if it can just physically knock off the target.
It depends on the interception scheme or schemes.

The more complex the interception schemes designed into the missile, the greater the uncertainty of a miss and therefore the greater the need for proximity explosive device.

In practice, even the most simple interception scheme -- tail chase -- have high uncertainty due to the potential maneuverability of the target. That maneuverability does not have to be innate, like built-in like a fighter aircraft would be. A gust of wind could make the target deviate from its flight path and to the missile, there is no way for it to know if that deviation is intentional or accidental.

Tail chase interception is the most simple but it require the launcher to place the interceptor in the initial ideal situation, meaning the launcher must wait until the target has passed his position before he can launch his interceptor. This is not always ideal in combat, especially aerial combat where the target is designed to be maneuverable and the executions of those maneuvers are unpredictable. So even though every pilot prefers to be behind his target and usually tries to position himself thus, he cannot take flight with the attitude that he will ONLY fire from the tail chase position. Not even WW I and WW II era fighter pilots have such limited combat view. They will engage head on, from the sides, oblique, top, and below.

The head-on interception scheme is problematic in that if there is a miss, it is extremely difficult of re-acquisition by the interceptor, human or missile. If there is a miss, sensor loss of target line-of-sight (LOS) is immediate. That sensor could be visual and/or electronic.

Why did I point out the tail chase and the head-on, the two most simple intercept structures?

Because of something call 'navigation intercept laws'...

Development of guidance laws for accelerating missile - Springer
Abstract

The most widely-used guidance law for short range homing missiles is Proportional Navigation (Pro. Nav.). In Pro. Nav. the acceleration command is proportional to the line of sight angular velocity (L.O.S rate). Indeed, if a missile and a target move on collision course with constant speeds the L.O.S rate is zero.
The speed of a highly maneuverable modern missile varies cnsiderably during flight. The performance using Pro. Nav. is far from being satisfactory.

In this work we analyze the collision course for a variable speed missile and define a guidance law that turns the heading of the missile towards a collision course. We develop guidance laws based on optimal control and differential games, and note that the optimal laws coincide with the ‘Guidance to Collision’ law at the moment of impact.
The tail chase laws are 'pure pursuit' laws, the simplest set of navigation/guidance laws.

Head-on interception scheme uses the much more complex proportional navigation laws...

IEEE Xplore - A derivation of pure proportional navigation
There are two basic proportional navigation guidance laws in missile guidance: true proportional navigation (TPN), and pure proportional navigation (PPN). The missile command acceleration in TPN is defined to be perpendicular to the line-of-sight (LOS), and is proportional to the LOS rate and the closing velocity. While in PPN, the missile command acceleration is perpendicular to the missile speed vector, and is proportional to the LOS rate and the missile velocity. This paper presents a derivation of PPN, which is performed via Q-parametrization of stabilizing controllers to optimize the robust stability of the parameter-frozen system.
As the missile uses sensor responses, be it IR or radar, extremely complex combinations of laws, hybrids or true, are constantly in play. The more sophisticated the sensor or package of sensors, the more complex the laws.

All of this is because of the desire to engage the target FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. If the missile was launched from the tail chase position, its initial use is pure pursuit (PP), for example. If the target maneuvers and if the target is still in sensor LOS, depending on the offset angle between the missile's heading and the target's heading, once that angle breaches a threshold, the missile switches to pro-nav or complex hybrids of it, kicks in its fins, and continues after the target.

Precisely because of the unpredictability of the target to execute maneuvers, proximity fused explosives are necessary. Complex sensors and guidance/navigation laws do not guarantee interceptions. That is why there is that thing called 'probability of kill' or Pk.

The greater the need to have an all aspect engagement interceptor, the greater the need for proximity fused explosives. The goal is not the destroy the target, even though that would be a nice thing to achieve. Rather, the real goal is to damage the target severely enough to prevent it from accomplishing its mission, which is to do damages to whatever that is valuable to you. If the target maneuvers just right so that you can literally hit it -- great. But we know that there are many gods of war and they are a fickle lot no matter how much we prayed to our own version, so the least we could do is to explode and do some damages if we cannot be sure of a physical collision.
 
i doubt the efficacy of these UAVs to surviel the wilderness of the rugged mountains with all the gorges and valleys espacialky towards the Sino_Indian border.

i mean, the yanks targetting talibunnies (read civilians) in villages, hutments (static targets) and inside vehs moving along traceable roads/tracks is one thing, but finding ghosts among the ravrines is another, the IR capability of these drones notwithstanding.


BTW, what to they suggest to do? Keep all 49 of these in the air at the same time or may be thier media can assist them when they are ready with the breaking news of 'ugarwadis attempting yet another infiltration'?
 
i doubt the efficacy of these UAVs to surviel the wilderness of the rugged mountains with all the gorges and valleys espacialky towards the Sino_Indian border.

i mean, the yanks targetting talibunnies (read civilians) in villages, hutments (static targets) and inside vehs moving along traceable roads/tracks is one thing, but finding ghosts among the ravrines is another, the IR capability of these drones notwithstanding.


BTW, what to they suggest to do? Keep all 49 of these in the air at the same time or may be thier media can assist them when they are ready with the breaking news of 'ugarwadis attempting yet another infiltration'?

Shouldn't we allow Indian Defence forces the leeway to do as they please or deem fit ?

Its their resource and they would obviously employ it in a manner they deem fit.
 
Shouldn't we allow Indian Defence forces the leeway to do as they please or deem fit ?

Its their resource and they would obviously employ it in a manner they deem fit.

Your forces can from my side employ them in the space if they deem it fit, but as a militaryman having some expeirence witn UAVs and that as the news is in the public domain, i can always raise queries which i deem fit. If you think the question is not pertinent or logical, you please point it out. But then, spare me the rehtorics, please.
 
Your forces can from my side employ them in the space if they deem it fit, but as a militaryman having some expeirence witn UAVs and that as the news is in the public domain, i can always raise queries which i deem fit. If you think the question is not pertinent or logical, you please point it out. But then, spare me the rehtorics, please.



You are suggesting that all 49 birds are kept airborne. Thats what I wish to point out. A suggestion like this wouldn't have come from even a cadet.

Does any force commit all its resources in one go ?

Allow them the options of deciding on their employment based on the threat, terrain, weather or any other special requirements the local commander may have.
 
i doubt the efficacy of these UAVs to surviel the wilderness of the rugged mountains with all the gorges and valleys espacialky towards the Sino_Indian border.

i mean, the yanks targetting talibunnies (read civilians) in villages, hutments (static targets) and inside vehs moving along traceable roads/tracks is one thing, but finding ghosts among the ravrines is another, the IR capability of these drones notwithstanding.


BTW, what to they suggest to do? Keep all 49 of these in the air at the same time or may be thier media can assist them when they are ready with the breaking news of 'ugarwadis attempting yet another infiltration'?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...e-china-pakistan-borders-3.html#ixzz2gStZteig
I seriously doubt the efficacy of the Think-tank to u.....
Where did u find in the article anything about deployment tactics which u have doubt? It seems u know more about drone deployment in Sino-Indo border than Indian Army . The terrain is hard yes ,that is exactly why we need these drones. And it is assumption that these will be used alone , obviously u know nothing about satellite and their uses.

You are suggesting that all 49 birds are kept airborne. Thats what I wish to point out. A suggestion like this wouldn't have come from even a cadet.

Does any force commit all its resources in one go ?

Allow them the options of deciding on their employment based on the threat, terrain, weather or any other special requirements the local commander may have.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/280624-49-drones-keep-eye-china-pakistan-borders-3.html#ixzz2gSucg54w
How easy to forget that we do have the resources of satellite imagery along with Drones?
 
You are suggesting that all 49 birds are kept airborne. Thats what I wish to point out. A suggestion like this wouldn't have come from even a cadet.

Does any force commit all its resources in one go ?

Allow them the options of deciding on their employment based on the threat, terrain, weather or any other special requirements the local commander may have.
Hmmm..so now are going to put your words in my mouth, right? Had you read my post without prejudice, you would have known that i did not 'suggest' anything, but asked a simple question, that too with some sarcasm, which was obviously too subtle for your brains to pick.

BTW, the meat of the question was in the first para to which you didnt touch at all, obviously for the lack of understanding that you and other fellow countrymen of yours have displayed regarding drones. You know what, that is one of the perils of getting info from google ;)

And then there was this gem who tells me that as the terrain is rugged, thus the drones are suitable. i think he has not heard of 'finding a needle in a haystack'.

Picking up concentrations of troops, vehicles or weapon systems by virtue of their large signatures is one thing, but using drones in that area where people, as per your military's assessment like to infiltrate in small parties, with a hope that shayed tokka lag jaye and some movement gets picked, is another!

There is a reason the infiltrators use rugged terrain to avoid detection, Einstein!

Have you ever heard that the westerners in Afghanistan had used drones to target terrorists while they were infiltrating/moving from or to Pakistan? Most of them were hit while they were away from the 'protection' of defiles, river lines/nullahs and the cover of hills.

May be next time you geniuses can use these drones in the forests to find infiltrators, as probably the the Americans were stupid to shift over to "Magnetic Anomaly Detectors (MAD)" Magnetic anomaly detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from IR and visual reconnaissance in Vietnam to detect truck ignition coils in vehicles hidden under heavy jungle canopies. (Couldnt see beyond the cover of forests and thus used MAD to pick up the magnetic flux when vehicles were started instead of electro-optical systems). The same system used in P3 Orions to detect Subs by picking up the disturbance they make in earth's magnetic field.


So, dare i "suggest" again, would you guys use these exactly 49 x drones together in some formation like the airforce to scan the area sector by sector 24/7 or does your military would come up with the next bright idea as far as UAV employment tactics is concerned :D
@gambit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm..so now are going to put your words in my mouth, right? Had you read my post without prejudice, you would have known that i did not 'suggest' anything, but asked a simple question, that too with some sarcasm, which was obviously too subtle for your brains to pick.

BTW, the meat of the question was in the first para to which you didnt touch at all, obviously for the lack of understanding that you and other fellow countrymen of yours have displayed regarding drones. You know what, that is one of the perils of getting info from google ;)

And then there was this gem who tells me that as the terrain is rugged, thus the drones are suitable. i think he has not heard of 'finding a needle in a haystack'.

Picking up concentrations of troops, vehicles or weapon systems by virtue of their large signatures is one thing, but using drones in that area where people, as per your military's assessment like to infiltrate in small parties, with a hope that shayed tokka lag jaye and some movement gets picked, is another!

There is a reason the infiltrators use rugged terrain to avoid detection, Einstein!

Have you ever heard that the westerners in Afghanistan had used drones to target terrorists while they were infiltrating/moving from or to Pakistan? Most of them were hit while they were away from the 'protection' of defiles, river lines/nullahs and the cover of hills.

May be next time you geniuses can use these drones in the forests to find infiltrators, as probably the the Americans were stupid to shift over to "Magnetic Anomaly Detectors (MAD)" Magnetic anomaly detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from IR and visual reconnaissance in Vietnam to detect truck ignition coils in vehicles hidden under heavy jungle canopies. (Couldnt see beyond the cover of forests and thus used MAD to pick up the magnetic flux when vehicles were started instead of electro-optical systems). The same system used in P3 Orions to detect Subs by picking up the disturbance they make in earth's magnetic field.


So, dare i "suggest" again, would you guys use these exactly 49 x drones together in some formation like the airforce to scan the area sector by sector 24/7 or does your military would come up with the next bright idea as far as UAV employment tactics is concerned :D
@gambit

Evidently a raw nerve has been touched.

Yes .Pakistanis do have more experience with the Drones than Indians since thay have for years been at the receiving end of its technology. Which is why I was surprised at the suggestion of putting all 49 of them in the air.

In response to the ' meat' - Recall your days , you would have been told in the Mid Career Course that resources ought to be employed in tandem - each complimenting the other and covering gaps / dead zones of another.

Drones would obviously not be used all by themselves but in conjunction with other airborne, electronic and ground resources.

Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is indeed strange that you are unable to 'see' sarcasm despite having a third eye :lol:

Tension not, that happens when one is in the habit of missing the forest for trees.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom