Indian Missiles and Guided Munitions

[东风夜放花千树]

It's pretty easy to have fins on the final stage of your ballistic missile and say it's a hypersonic weapon. That doesn't mean it's capable of high enough maneuverability at hypersonic speed to count as one.

View attachment 195778

Looking at the picture of it being test launched, the final stage isn't that different to a scaled up SM-6, sat on a ballistic missile first stage. This would likely give low hypersonic terminal speed (Mach 6, not 10), without HGV maneuverability. .

Does this count as a way to forcibly reach hypersonic speeds regardless of the cost?

 

[NeptunesVortex]

Haha, you've got the difference between the American Dark Eagle missile and this Indian-made missile wrong.

US C-HGB → boost-glide, shock-lift, high altitude flight profile.

India’s LR-HM → guided boost (FNC + thrust termination), energy managed, solid motor sustained atmospheric hypersonic flight using vortex lift stabilization and decoupled lift/control for continuous maneuver authority.

 

[LX1111]

Does this count as a way to forcibly reach hypersonic speeds regardless of the cost?

This junk object would only reach over 5 Mach at the moment it re-enters the atmosphere. After that, it will definitely decelerate significantly. If the Indians choose to desperately increase the thrust, the aerodynamic heating caused by the friction between the warhead and the atmosphere will burn this junk to pieces. Then we will be able to see a brilliant meteor shower in the sky. This would be a great opportunity to confess to your girlfriend.

 

[DÂZÂI]

US C-HGB → boost-glide, shock-lift, high altitude flight profile.

India's LR-HM → powered atmospheric flight, vortex-lift + continuous control

LR-AShM was a stupid idea - we wasted so much money on its development when we could have followed Pakistan model and painted SASM (supersonic anti ship missile) pinaka rocket and start advertising it as hypersonic missile

 

[LX1111]

US C-HGB → boost-glide, shock-lift, high altitude flight profile.

India's LR-HM → powered atmospheric flight, vortex-lift + continuous control

I think I have been detailed enough. During the hypersonic stage, the vortex lift does not exist. You'd better read what I said carefully. If you still don't understand, you can ask the AI to explain it to you in detail.

 

[NeptunesVortex]

I think I have been detailed enough. During the hypersonic stage, the vortex lift does not exist. You'd better read what I said carefully. If you still don't understand, you can ask the AI to explain it to you in detail.

The missile has a cruciform layout in two separate sections. At the rear there are 4 cruciform inline actuated fins and the missile has tail control in pitch, yaw and roll through fin deflection which means full 3 axis control authority. In the mid-body there are 4 static dorsal fins, described as low aspect ratio wings arranged in a cruciform configuration. These mid-body fins enables vortex lift, directional stability, maneuverability, sustained aerodynamic efficiency and optimized packaging which also implies compact integration within the missile body or canister.

The rear section is booster with FNC which actually proves that the booster stage is not passive and includes flight navigation/control during powered flight. Right near that section there is a clearly marked thrust termination port which means the booster does not have to burn to completion and can actively cut off thrust mid-burn which means full control over velocity and trajectory during the boost phase.

 

[LX1111]

The boost phase of Indian hypersonic missile itself is guided (FNC active) and has a thrust termination port, so it doesn’t just burn to completion. It shapes velocity and trajectory right from the first secs, avoids overshoot and sets up a clean entry into the atmosphere with the right energy state. After that it uses a long burn, high energy solid sustainer, so it can compensate for drag losses and keep hypersonic speed inside dense atmosphere instead of dropping out of it like a glide body would. Heating is managed with trajectory shaping, AoA control, shock layer management and thermal protection materials. Staying in the atmosphere spreads heating over time instead of taking a single peak like a steep re-entry.
The aerodynamics also aren’t what you’re assuming. Those aren’t random fins. The short-span, long-chord cruciform mid-body surfaces generate vortex lift through controlled flow separation which helps maintain lift and stability at high Mach and high AoA. The tail fins handle pitch, yaw and roll, so lift and control are separated. That means it can maneuver without constantly destabilizing itself. Inline fin layout also reduces roll coupling and parasitic drag which matters at high dynamic pressure. Yes, there is wave drag and heating but you still need control authority, otherwise it’s just a projectile.

Perhaps there was an error in my technical terms. You didn't understand it properly.
1
Your main issue: Confusing subsonic and hypersonic speeds
The statement "generating vortex lift" is basically not valid at hypersonic speeds.
The principle you described is a typical "rib vortex" - this is used by fighter jets such as F/A-18 and Su-27 at low speeds and high angles of attack. But at hypersonic speeds (>5 Mach):

1. The vortex will be compressed by the shock wave: At 5 Mach, the airflow will form a close-fitting oblique shock wave, and the leading edge simply cannot generate the stable vortex that he described. This is like trying to blow a stable soap bubble under a waterfall; it is physically impossible.
2. The vortex lift ≈ 0: Even if a little vortex is generated, it is overwhelmed by the huge shock wave resistance and wave drag. At this point, the so-called "lift" is actually compressive lift (where the shock wave "pushes" the aircraft up), rather than lift generated by the vortex.
For instance, using a "wooden paddle for rowing" as a "propeller". The wooden paddle does generate thrust when moving through water (at subsonic speed); but if he wants to rely on "vortex lift" at hypersonic speeds, it's like trying to use the wooden paddle as an air propeller and still make it work at several hundred kilometers per hour - the principles are completely different.
2
You are half right and half wrong: Regarding shock wave resistance and control
· "Adding small wings to increase wave resistance is worthwhile" - This statement is correct. To obtain control moments, sacrificing some wave resistance is a reasonable trade-off in engineering.
· "The in-line layout reduces roll coupling" - This is questionable at hypersonic speeds. The layout you are proud of, "four middle wings + four tail rudders", is a typical "×-×" layout. This layout has very serious roll coupling: when the ailerons differ, a huge yawing moment will be generated, which needs to be compensated desperately with the rudder. This can be solved by the flight control system at low speeds, but at hypersonic speeds, the control margin is extremely narrow, and it will seriously waste the thrust of the engine.

 

[NeptunesVortex]

If you still don't understand, you can ask the AI to explain it to you in detail.

That pretty much sums up the limit of your understanding.

 

[LX1111]

The missile has a cruciform layout in two separate sections. At the rear there are 4 cruciform inline actuated fins and the missile has tail control in pitch, yaw and roll through fin deflection which means full 3 axis control authority. In the mid-body there are 4 static dorsal fins, described as low aspect ratio wings arranged in a cruciform configuration. These mid-body fins enables vortex lift, directional stability, maneuverability, sustained aerodynamic efficiency and optimized packaging which also implies compact integration within the missile body or canister.

The rear section is booster with FNC which actually proves that the booster stage is not passive and includes flight navigation/control during powered flight. Right near that section there is a clearly marked thrust termination port which means the booster does not have to burn to completion and can actively cut off thrust mid-burn which means full control over velocity and trajectory during the boost phase.

At hypersonic speeds, vortex lift does not exist. It's as simple as that.

 

[NeptunesVortex]

Perhaps there was an error in my technical terms. You didn't understand it properly.
1
Your main issue: Confusing subsonic and hypersonic speeds
The statement "generating vortex lift" is basically not valid at hypersonic speeds.
The principle you described is a typical "rib vortex" - this is used by fighter jets such as F/A-18 and Su-27 at low speeds and high angles of attack. But at hypersonic speeds (>5 Mach):

1. The vortex will be compressed by the shock wave: At 5 Mach, the airflow will form a close-fitting oblique shock wave, and the leading edge simply cannot generate the stable vortex that he described. This is like trying to blow a stable soap bubble under a waterfall; it is physically impossible.
2. The vortex lift ≈ 0: Even if a little vortex is generated, it is overwhelmed by the huge shock wave resistance and wave drag. At this point, the so-called "lift" is actually compressive lift (where the shock wave "pushes" the aircraft up), rather than lift generated by the vortex.
For instance, using a "wooden paddle for rowing" as a "propeller". The wooden paddle does generate thrust when moving through water (at subsonic speed); but if he wants to rely on "vortex lift" at hypersonic speeds, it's like trying to use the wooden paddle as an air propeller and still make it work at several hundred kilometers per hour - the principles are completely different.
2
You are half right and half wrong: Regarding shock wave resistance and control
· "Adding small wings to increase wave resistance is worthwhile" - This statement is correct. To obtain control moments, sacrificing some wave resistance is a reasonable trade-off in engineering.
· "The in-line layout reduces roll coupling" - This is questionable at hypersonic speeds. The layout you are proud of, "four middle wings + four tail rudders", is a typical "×-×" layout. This layout has very serious roll coupling: when the ailerons differ, a huge yawing moment will be generated, which needs to be compensated desperately with the rudder. This can be solved by the flight control system at low speeds, but at hypersonic speeds, the control margin is extremely narrow, and it will seriously waste the thrust of the engine.

I didn't say it works like an F/A-18. At hypersonic speed the flow is shock dominated, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean vortices just disappear. What happens is compression lift from the shock is dominant and on top of that you still get controlled flow separation and vortex structures along sharp edges, especially at higher AoA. They help with stability and control.

The real issue is shock boundary layer interaction. Designers shape the body and edges so the flow stays predictable though not perfectly clean. Those short-span, long-chord mid-body fins are exactly the kind of geometry used for that to manage the flow, keep stability but not act like big wings.

On drag and heating yes, any surface adds wave drag and heating. That’s obvious. But you still need control authority. So you keep the surfaces small and inline to limit penalties while still being able to steer. Every hypersonic design makes that trade somewhere.
About roll coupling any configuration has coupling. The point of an inline cruciform layout is symmetry, so the coupling is predictable and controllable. At hypersonic dynamic pressure even small deflections give strong control moments, so you don’t need huge corrections like you’re implying.

And you’re missing the bigger part. This Indian system has a booster which is guided (FNC active) and has a thrust termination port, so it shapes its trajectory and energy during boost itself instead of just burning and fixing things later. That reduces stress on the control system later in flight.
After that it doesn’t just glide and lose speed. It has a long burn solid sustainer, so it can compensate for drag and stay hypersonic inside the atmosphere while maneuvering.

 

[东风夜放花千树]

This junk object would only reach over 5 Mach at the moment it re-enters the atmosphere. After that, it will definitely decelerate significantly. If the Indians choose to desperately increase the thrust, the aerodynamic heating caused by the friction between the warhead and the atmosphere will burn this junk to pieces. Then we will be able to see a brilliant meteor shower in the sky. This would be a great opportunity to confess to your girlfriend.

I don't know much about missile technology.

From the picture posted by this Indian person, I noticed that this missile has a huge propulsion device underneath. This is probably an attempt to reach a certain altitude to gain enough kinetic energy, right?

Missiles have a pattern. When the weight is large, you need to increase the fuel to get enough thrust, but the fuel is also part of the payload, so you need to find a balance point.

Obviously, this Indian missile seems not to have found the balance point; it looks very abnormal. It's like a missile with an extra booster forcibly attached underneath. And this booster is also way too big.

 

[NeptunesVortex]

I don't know much about missile technology.

From the picture posted by this Indian person, I noticed that this missile has a huge propulsion device underneath. This is probably an attempt to reach a certain altitude to gain enough kinetic energy, right?

Missiles have a pattern. When the weight is large, you need to increase the fuel to get enough thrust, but the fuel is also part of the payload, so you need to find a balance point.

Obviously, this Indian missile seems not to have found the balance point; it looks very abnormal. It's like a missile with an extra booster forcibly attached underneath. And this booster is also way too big.

That section is the primary booster stage sized for a different flight profile. It doesn’t loft high and glide. It transitions early to a horizontal, in-atmosphere path, so the booster must deliver high initial acceleration and the right dynamic pressure quickly. It’s also guided during boost (FNC active) and has a thrust termination port, so it shapes velocity and trajectory during the burn instead of burning to completion avoiding overshoot and setting the correct entry conditions. After boost, a long burn solid sustainer keeps hypersonic speed in dense air and compensates for drag during maneuvers which requires entering the atmosphere with sufficient energy margin that drives booster sizing up.

 

[LX1111]

I didn't say it works like an F/A-18. At hypersonic speed the flow is shock dominated, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean vortices just disappear. What happens is compression lift from the shock is dominant and on top of that you still get controlled flow separation and vortex structures along sharp edges, especially at higher AoA. They help with stability and control.

The real issue is shock boundary layer interaction. Designers shape the body and edges so the flow stays predictable though not perfectly clean. Those short-span, long-chord mid-body fins are exactly the kind of geometry used for that to manage the flow, keep stability but not act like big wings.

On drag and heating yes, any surface adds wave drag and heating. That’s obvious. But you still need control authority. So you keep the surfaces small and inline to limit penalties while still being able to steer. Every hypersonic design makes that trade somewhere.
About roll coupling any configuration has coupling. The point of an inline cruciform layout is symmetry, so the coupling is predictable and controllable. At hypersonic dynamic pressure even small deflections give strong control moments, so you don’t need huge corrections like you’re implying.

And you’re missing the bigger part. This Indian system has a booster which is guided (FNC active) and has a thrust termination port, so it shapes its trajectory and energy during boost itself instead of just burning and fixing things later. That reduces stress on the control system later in flight.
After that it doesn’t just glide and lose speed. It has a long burn solid sustainer, so it can compensate for drag and stay hypersonic inside the atmosphere while maneuvering.

1
At hypersonic speeds, the vortices affected by viscosity are only present in the extremely close vicinity of the wall within the boundary layer (with a thickness possibly only in the millimeter range), and the aerodynamic force they generate can be negligible compared to the force produced by shock wave compression. Controlling an aircraft using such "vortices" is like trying to boil water in a hurricane using the heat from a single candle.
2
At high angles of attack, the interaction between shock waves and the boundary layer causes a wide range of airflow separation, resulting in a sudden drop or even failure of the wing efficiency. The vortices you mentioned are often not helpful in such conditions; instead, they are precursors of out-of-control situations.
3
At hypersonic speeds, it is the significant pressure difference between the front and rear of the shock wave that truly provides the control moment for the wing surface, rather than the vortices. You have confused the concepts of "the existence of vortices" and "the vortices are functioning".

And you’re missing the bigger part. This Indian system has a booster which is guided (FNC active) and has a thrust termination port, so it shapes its trajectory and energy during boost itself instead of just burning and fixing things later. That reduces stress on the control system later in flight.
After that it doesn’t just glide and lose speed. It has a long burn solid sustainer, so it can compensate for drag and stay hypersonic inside the atmosphere while maneuvering.

Do you mean the side thrust on the anti-aircraft missile? Something similar to that on the PAC3MSE?

 

[NeptunesVortex]

1
At hypersonic speeds, the vortices affected by viscosity are only present in the extremely close vicinity of the wall within the boundary layer (with a thickness possibly only in the millimeter range), and the aerodynamic force they generate can be negligible compared to the force produced by shock wave compression. Controlling an aircraft using such "vortices" is like trying to boil water in a hurricane using the heat from a single candle.
2
At high angles of attack, the interaction between shock waves and the boundary layer causes a wide range of airflow separation, resulting in a sudden drop or even failure of the wing efficiency. The vortices you mentioned are often not helpful in such conditions; instead, they are precursors of out-of-control situations.
3
At hypersonic speeds, it is the significant pressure difference between the front and rear of the shock wave that truly provides the control moment for the wing surface, rather than the vortices. You have confused the concepts of "the existence of vortices" and "the vortices are functioning".

At hypersonic speeds, yes, compression (shock) lift dominates and the boundary layer is thin. But the flow is not just a clean shock sitting on a perfectly attached boundary layer. You still have shock boundary layer interaction and controlled separation. The vortical structures that come out of that are not the primary lift source but they are not negligible either. So what they does is they affect the pressure distribution and stability which is exactly what control depends on. It’s working with the flow structures that already exist to keep them stable and predictable.

On high AoA, uncontrolled separation can absolutely kill performance, that’s true. But that’s exactly why the geometry is shaped the way it is. The goal is not to avoid separation completely (which is impossible) but to make sure it happens in a controlled, repeatable way. Sharp edges and low aspect ratio surfaces are used to anchor where separation starts, so it doesn’t move randomly and cause loss of control. So separation becomes a managed flow state.

On control forces you’re correct that pressure differences across the shock system generate the main control moments. No disagreement there. But that doesn’t mean vortical/separated flow is irrelevant. The control surfaces work within that flow field and if the flow becomes unstable, your pressure distribution also becomes unstable. The vortex effects matter because they help keep the flow attached or predictably separated around the control surfaces which keeps those pressure forces usable.

I'm not saying vortices are doing everything.
My point is: Shock/compression → main source of lift and control forces.
SBLI + controlled separation/vortex structures → keep the flow stable so those forces remain usable.

 

[safriz]

Indian Long range anti ship . This has an HGV strapped to a large rocket. I would only call it successful if HGV is also shown flying after stage separation, as thats where real issues happen. An object trying to generate aerodynamic lift and maneuvers, at hypersonic speeds .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies