India successfully tests Nirbhay cruise missile

[kurup]

Congratulations to India and DRDO for such a successful flight. It is really a great achievement, and judging by DRDO's present technological advancement and the characteristics of Nirbhay, it has left Babur a bit behind (though deployment status is another story).
Exactly which turbofan is being used aboard Nirbhay?

For those expecting the range extension of Nirbhay, there are 3 fundamental ways of range extensions for subsonic cruise missiles:
1. More efficient turbofan
2. Missile redesign to accommodate more fuel.
3. Increase length of the missile body.
Now, unless there is official confirmation, range is not likely to be increased. Reason being, the turbofan has already a quite good performance, and I doubt there will be a better one available anytime soon. Same is the case with internal design. And comparing with other renowned cruise missiles, the length is already optimum (however only as much as 0.5m of extension in length could give rise to considerably large range extension).



Umm fuel consumption is already per-determined, so there is nothing like "when they saw extra fuel...". Most probably the extra waypoints were also planned, but only 10 were required by the test parameters.
Lock-on after Launch is not practical in this case as the required TERCOM maps have to be fed prior to launch for an accurate terrain hugging flight.
Real-time (not really, with a lag) video transmission back to monitoring station is a must for a cruise missile test.

Good to see you here , I was waiting for you .....

An off-topic query ..... you can answer it in the relevant thread .

What is the standard condition set for the 700 km range of Babur ??

I mean Warhead weight , amount of fuel carried , total missile weight , mach number and altitude .

Any such data available .

 

[MilSpec]

@WebMaster @Horus look at this troll so that it can not be convert into VS thread.

@Munir why the negative rating?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@Munir why the negative rating?

Wait for an answer.............if it comes.
Waiting for Godot...............

 

[sancho]

@levina, @The_Sidewinder

You did the right thing to report to the officials about the posts and there are already discussions going on about misuse of ratings in the appropriate threads. The rest is up to the Webbies and Mods to decide. So don't let yourself be provoked and move on with the discussions on the topic!

 

[kaykay]

Any news about its total warhead carrying capacity?

 

[nair]

@levina, @The_Sidewinder

You did the right thing to report to the officials about the posts and there are already discussions going on about misuse of ratings in the appropriate threads. The rest is up to the Webbies and Mods to decide. So don't let yourself be provoked and move on with the discussions on the topic!

As @sancho rightly said get back to the discussion,

 

[temp1994]

To do what? To apply copious amounts of Burnol?

Why not?

Both Brahmos and Nirbhay are phallic in shape, and they could be use to satisfy incurable itch that some think tanks on this forum have.Burnol could be used as lubricant.

You know dual use system, right!

 

[The Deterrent]

Good to see you here , I was waiting for you .....

An off-topic query ..... you can answer it in the relevant thread .

What is the standard condition set for the 700 km range of Babur ??

I mean Warhead weight , amount of fuel carried , total missile weight , mach number and altitude .

Any such data available .

Cheers mate.

There is only one standard configuration as far as physical parameters are concerned.
Warhead weight is standard, period. Be it nuclear or conventional.
Same goes for fuel carried, since fuel is not expensive, neither saving it improves performance...plus it removes the headache of calculated pre-flight fueling.
Same is the case with speed, which is between Mach 0.6-0.7.
Altitude varies throughout the flight depending on the flight profile and terrain, but usually it is higher initially and drops for terrain hugging as the missile proceeds towards the terminal phase.

 

[MilSpec]

This is exact copy of a tomohawk. Let me remind you how Indians reacted when Pakistan tested a decade ago Babur... If one repeats that (and indeed this one looks a lot more then a tomahawk) it is suddenly a nationalistic blind person. Let me ask you, what is the difference? And how come India is behind Pakistan?

Please tell us how is it the exact copy of "tomohawk".... as far Indian coming behind pakistan is considered, there are quite a few avenues, where we are not even in the race...

 

[Kloitra]

Cheers mate.

There is only one standard configuration as far as physical parameters are concerned.
Warhead weight is standard, period. Be it nuclear or conventional.
Same goes for fuel carried, since fuel is not expensive, neither saving it improves performance...plus it removes the headache of calculated pre-flight fueling.
Same is the case with speed, which is between Mach 0.6-0.7.
Altitude varies throughout the flight depending on the flight profile and terrain, but usually it is higher initially and drops for terrain hugging as it proceeds towards the terminal phase.

Is it not possible to trade fuel with warhead weight for a shorter flight?

 

[MilSpec]

I am interested in how that is possible... how would one sustain energy? Otherwise it is needed to be huge. Why not saying lightspeed in 2017?

Air breathing turbofan with sustained terminal speed of mach 1 is possible. As far as the technological aspect of it is concerned it wouldn't be any different from a jet aircraft. For the sake of argument considered a Mig21 converted to a target drone, which can tranverse 2000 km's in single flight and enters supersonic terminal phase with a turbofan made in the early 50.
The low bypass ratios and, the increments in compression ratio have been achieved in last three decades which will let airframes do better. In my opinion it wouldn't be a cost effective delivery system, but the again as per mars refrences you brought in, cost effectiveness is a proven Indian forte...hope that helps

 

[The Deterrent]

Is it not possible to trade fuel with warhead weight for a shorter flight?

Theoretically it is.

But practically speaking, the missile's internal design provides limited options. The fuel tank section is of a fixed volume, so more fuel simply can't be carried (much like why fighters carry drop-tanks, since they have limited internal capacity). Similarly warheads developed are also of standard specifications, set during design phase.
You simply cannot take out a few kilograms of HE and toss in more fuel.

For such trade-offs to materialize, entirely new variants have to be developed. Say, if India develops a 100kg nuclear device, an extended range variant of Nirbhay could be developed, provided the design allows for volume extension of fuel tank.

EDIT: Just realized you were talking about a "shorter ranged missile with more warhead weight", but the same thing applies here too. The warhead section's volume/length is also fixed.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Congratulations to India and DRDO for such a successful flight. It is really a great achievement, and judging by DRDO's present technological advancement and the characteristics of Nirbhay, it has left Babur a bit behind (though deployment status is another story).
Exactly which turbofan is being used aboard Nirbhay?

For those expecting the range extension of Nirbhay, there are 3 fundamental ways of range extensions for subsonic cruise missiles:
1. More efficient turbofan
2. Missile redesign to accommodate more fuel.
3. Increase length of the missile body.
Now, unless there is official confirmation, range is not likely to be increased. Reason being, the turbofan has already a quite good performance, and I doubt there will be a better one available anytime soon. Same is the case with internal design. And comparing with other renowned cruise missiles, the length is already optimum (however only as much as 0.5m of extension in length could give rise to considerably large range extension).



Umm fuel consumption is already per-determined, so there is nothing like "when they saw extra fuel...". Most probably the extra waypoints were also planned, but only 10 were required by the test parameters.
Lock-on after Launch is not practical in this case as the required TERCOM maps have to be fed prior to launch for an accurate terrain hugging flight.
Real-time (not really, with a lag) video transmission back to monitoring station is a must for a cruise missile test.

Good to see you here @The Deterrent; after some bouts of monumentally meaningless verbiage that got dumped here.

Increase of Range is the next step; right now all the work is directed towards operationalising this version.
And as you correctly said; that next step will take place around the power-plant.

 

[MilSpec]

In the video posted here, reporting is claiming that missile will fly at 10-12 km alt. Is it normal for cruise missile? If yes than why we call them terrain hugging? 10-12 km hell of distance for hugging.

Terrain hugging charecteristics would be validated in subsequent testing. This test was to validate the propulsion and guidance imo

 

[Kloitra]

Theoretically it is.

But practically speaking, the missile's internal design provides limited options. The fuel tank section is of a fixed volume, so more fuel simply can't be carried (much like why fighters carry drop-tanks, since they have limited internal capacity). Similarly warheads developed are also of standard specifications, set during design phase.
You simply cannot take out a few kilograms of HE and toss in more fuel.

For such trade-offs to materialize, entirely new variants have to be developed. Say, if India develops a 100kg nuclear device, an extended range variant of Nirbhay could be developed, provided the design allows for volume extension of fuel tank.

I meant the other way - increase payload for reduced fuel at the cost of range. But if warheads are of fixed design than it is a moot point. I was under impression that warheads would go through constant change, with type of explosives, requirements etc.