| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| India Test-Fires Surface-To-Air Missile |
| 2003-12-20 |
| India test-fired a short-range, surface-to-air missile on Friday, the second such launch in two days, a defense ministry official said. The homemade Trishul was fired from a mobile launcher in the eastern state of Orissa at 11:30 a.m., Amitabha Chakrabarti, the defense ministry spokesman, said. "It was a routine test. We will be carrying out further tests over the next few days," he said. The supersonic Trishul is capable of targeting aircraft and sea-skimming missiles. The solid-fuel missile can carry a warhead of up to 33 pounds. It has a range of about five miles and a radar guidance system. Trishul is used by India’s army, navy and air force. "The repeated test firings are to check the different parameters of the missile. Before it is inducted into the armed forces, we have to carry out many trials," Chakrabarti said. A Pakistan foreign ministry official, who did not want to be named, said Islamabad does not comment on tests of such short-range missiles by India. A Pakistan defense ministry official, however, slapped his forehead repeatedly and walked away muttering "how in the hell are we going to counter that?" |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 We might want to make sure that NORAD is not farming out technical work to Indian firms to cut payroll. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-12-20 4:53:29 PM |
| #6 My guess is this isn't going to be a high altitude ADA system, theater/army level, given its range, but rather a platform mounted SAM for the front line troops, like those folks in Kashmir amoungst other places. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-12-20 11:29:30 AM |
| #5 I used to launch toy rockets with (with the M-80 / cherrybomb warhead)? Raj.. you've broken the Rocketeers Code, it's my sad duty to denounce you to Tripoli.org. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-20 10:58:08 AM |
| #4 Thanks, SH, I was comparing their rockets with Saturn V / shuttle technology, thanks for setting me straight! Money graf: Liquid fuels are more powerful than solid fuels; but other than this advantage, a liquid-fuel rocket is not ideally suited as a weapon-propulsion system. Because of their high volatility and corrosive nature, liquid fuels cannot be stored for long periods of time, which usually means the system must be fueled just prior to launch. This negates its ability to be a quick-reaction weapon, which is usually required in combat situations. |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-12-20 10:18:27 AM |
| #3 Solid fuel, IIRC, means once you ignite it, you can't stop it 'til the fuel is gone. Also, there's no way to control the throttle--it burns at one constant rate 'til the fuel is exhausted. But that's fine for a SAM, which is expected to take a high speed, one-way trip. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-12-20 10:13:31 AM |
| #2 Raj, someone posted an excellent link to a Ratyheon site in a post yesterday about the Japanese missile defence. I think that the our standard missiles are solid fueled so that the oxidizer can be mixed properly with the fuel but this page on Global Security called Rockets for Rookies indicates that either solid or liquid will work in these apoplications. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-12-20 10:04:09 AM |
| #1 Solid fuel - isn't that old tech, kind of like the old Estes D's I used to launch toy rockets with (with the M-80 / cherrybomb warhead)? |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-12-20 9:45:47 AM |