Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 26 Nov 2009 06:11

Rahul M wrote:
sourab_c wrote:IMO, DRDO is struggling with lack of appropriate quality control protocols. I mean, having the technology and not being able to implement it in a system can only be a quality control issue. Missiles are complex systems and without a strict quality control in its production lines, the desired results can not be achieved.

ISRO can help DRDO in this regard.
I see. how do you come to that conclusion ?

Sorry for not elaborating. Here is the part that led me to that conclusion-

From the article (If Hemant Kumar is to be believed)-

The establishments like ITR should be brought out of the clutches of the defence research and development laboratory (DRDL) and put under director general quality assurance (DGQA) for impartial evaluation of the technical data and thus minimising the chances of manoeuvring and fabrication of the PMA data.

Doubts have been raised about lack quality control(QC) in DRDO labs before too, I can't seem to find the specific articles at the moment.

Even if my interpretation is wrong and DRDO does have proper QC equipments, there is a lot of foreign maal in our missiles and I doubt that DRDO would be willing to spend the money or is capable to test all that.

As an aside, the Japanese struggled with the same issue during World War 2 and incidentally were the first ones to impose strict quality control protocols in their industries.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 26 Nov 2009 06:25

Launch complex-4 is on wheeler Island from where all the three Agni versions (1,2 and 3) have been tested.

Launch complex-3 is from where the AAD, PAD, and Shourya have been test fired. (all open source info)

There are several launch complexes in the ITR. The ITR itself is in several parts all wonderfully visible on google earth.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2009 09:49

sourab, if you fall for hatchet job articles by journalists of suspect credentials then you have only yourselves to blame. then again, th article talks of moving ITR (interim test range) to the control of MOD (DGQA is a dept of the MOD) for impartial analysis of data, not for any perceived lack of QC at DRDO labs.
care to pause and think how the DRDO that supposedly has low QC can manage to achieve more than one successful testing of the much more complex and advanced ABM systems ?

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 26 Nov 2009 13:06

Rahul M wrote:sourab, if you fall for hatchet job articles by journalists of suspect credentials then you have only yourselves to blame. then again, th article talks of moving ITR (interim test range) to the control of MOD (DGQA is a dept of the MOD) for impartial analysis of data, not for any perceived lack of QC at DRDO labs.
care to pause and think how the DRDO that supposedly has low QC can manage to achieve more than one successful testing of the much more complex and advanced ABM systems ?

Completely agreed, but kindly understand that the motive of my post was not to defame DRDO in any way but for further integration of ISRO and DRDO (I know a lot of people won't agree with this and I know why).

Also, even if DRDO is lacking in any way, whether it be QC or anything else, its all part of a learning process and occassional failures are nothing to be ashamed of.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2009 13:19

it's about being factual nothing to do with airy-fairy ideas like shame. in this case the missiles may have even been made by BDL, which makes your comments even more out of context.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 Nov 2009 14:48

Sourab_c.... i may be wrong but I think one of the conditions for ISRO to obtain certain technologies from west is premised on this seperation of DRDO and ISRO..

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 26 Nov 2009 16:26

ramdas wrote:One more possible cause for A II failures can be sabotage. This is an angle that should be investigated as well.

That could be the case. TSP has a very good network in India, and probably within the armed forces. They have huge orgnisations like SIMI and Underworld organisations to support their acitivties. Remember how several armes depot caught fire, some years ago.

However, I think the main reason could be some small manufacturing defect. Indian defence Industry have a very very poor record in manufacturing quality. After all, it is a proven missile and the same scientists have solved far more complex issues.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 26 Nov 2009 17:01

ramdas wrote:Still, I hope that we ASAP end this absolutely humiliating state of having a deployed IRBM arsenal that is inferior to that of TSP. Having an effective ballistic missile arsenal should be the top priority for the nation right now.

As Indians we feel bad about this. But what will a Pakistani make of this news? Could this be a well orchestration govt campaign to cover a successful test? or the test of a more advanced AagniII-AT?

A less prepared TSP or PRC is in India's interest. Indian media may be a bunch of unruly dorks but they are totally predictable.These days media is an important tool of state policy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2009 17:06

More theories emerge

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ag ... ht_1316087

Everyone associated with the missile were monitoring it from the Defence Research and Development Centre (DRDO) at Chandipur, about 100km from the testing site. They were relieved after Agni had a smooth take-off. The missile had three components. While the first two carried solid fuel, the last one carried the payload, which should have hit the target. After the take-off, there was a smooth first stage separation which gave the missile the necessary momentum to go ahead. But a problem cropped up in the second stage. Though the fuel started burning, the container carrying the fuel did not separate. It failed to give the necessary thrust and fell down on its own weight.

On being the reasons for the failure, a DRDO official said, "The missile might have failed to hit its target due to an operational problem. It has nothing to do with the time of the day." An inquiry has been started to find out why the mission failed.

"There could be a thousand reasons for the debacle," the DRDO official said. "We have to find out whether the material was at fault or whether there was a mistake on somebody's part. We have started investigating the case," he said.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories ... 201400.htm

The malfunction, probably in the control system for a few seconds, affected the normal thrust and resulted in the missile losing its speed. The vehicle became uncontrollable subsequently. The problem might have occurred either during separation or ignition of the second stage.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 26 Nov 2009 17:25

As Indians we feel bad about this. But what will a Pakistani make of this news? Could this be a well orchestration govt campaign to cover a successful test? or the test of a more advanced AagniII-AT?

A less prepared TSP or PRC is in India's interest. Indian media may be a bunch of unruly dorks but they are totally predictable.These days media is an important tool of state policy.
ramdas wrote:Still, I hope that we ASAP end this absolutely humiliating state of having a deployed IRBM arsenal that is inferior to that of TSP. Having an effective ballistic missile arsenal should be the top priority for the nation right now.
As Indians we feel bad about this. But what will a Pakistani make of this news? Could this be a well orchestration govt campaign to cover a successful test? or the test of a more advanced AagniII-AT?

A less prepared TSP or PRC is in India's interest. Indian media may be a bunch of unruly dorks but they are totally predictable.These days media is an important tool of state policy.

what you say is OK when the question is about conventional weapons. In th edeterrence business, the dynamic is different. A successful test can never be covered up. PRC has enough independent assets (like space based ones ) to find out whether a test is sucessful or not. Media is a tol of state policy everywhere except in India, where it is a tool of a clique of anti-state pacifists

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 Nov 2009 17:35

kailash.. that quite a convoluted logic.. how does a indian missile failure translate into less prepared PRC or napaks... such failures give additional courage to enemy to indulge in what it has been doing and much more..!!

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 26 Nov 2009 20:17

I don't for a minute belieive that Agni test is a failure, there was a deliberate attempt to keep the flames of agni destroying the nearby wheeler islands and its turtles, ask BARC about DRDO.

Also Indian atmospheric conditions at night are very different from those in other counties, Agni has to be acclimatized to night and day to operate

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 26 Nov 2009 21:26

It it was a failure, then it is time to accept it and rectify it.

The issue stated by Rout about foreign made INS being used for the test flights and an Indian made one for the production versions is a very serious one if the indian made ones are underperforming. If there is any truth in this, this could also mean that the laser ring gyros being used in the Shourya and the A-3 are also videshi ones with the desi versions coming in later.

This was an issue of stage separation, the explosive blocks at the interstage are supposed to go off at stage separation. Maybe a problem at this level, I understand that an electronic signal makes these block go off in a synchronized manner, maybe a problem with the cabling etc. Not a very major issue it seems.

As to why did it actually happen is going to need to be rectified and the same applied to all missile systems currently deployed.

This is why many many field tests are needed, not just 3 development flights. Unanticipated problems will crop up all the time. In the Agni 3 first test there was a blowback of the hot gases into the control cables of the maneuverable nozzle of the first stage, this was rectified with a heat resistant blanket. The test missiles are fresh off the block. What happens after a missile has been on a railway wagon for a year being lugged all over the country, jerked around, being raised a dozen times for field dry runs, being exposed to dust and heat and moisture and grime for months at end is an issue that needs better understanding. The missiles will need to be proofed against the rigors of field deployment, and despite the best practices being employed there will be newer and unanticipated issues that'll crop up.

Now onto my favourite subject, N weapons. I shudder think what the nuclear deterrence is like on the basis on one S2 test and a ??? S1 test. Shouldn't the country have tested a N-bum after it has been lugged around on aircrafts and missiles and trucks and has laid around in a dusty environment and an AC storage facility for a few years? How will we know how good the system is, if field testing by the end users of a weapon from the stock is not done?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 26 Nov 2009 22:20

Depending on how extensive the pre-flight diagnostic checks are, the fault point might be outside that drag net, however something as crucial as an INS will be part of those checks, the comment on its non-performance in flight is surprising

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 27 Nov 2009 03:53

Umrao Das wrote:I don't for a minute belieive that Agni test is a failure, there was a deliberate attempt to keep the flames of agni destroying the nearby wheeler islands and its turtles, ask BARC about DRDO.

Also Indian atmospheric conditions at night are very different from those in other counties, Agni has to be acclimatized to night and day to operate

I just read a report from a Hans Chirstensen from FAS. I had discarded the their analyses but now have started to understand a bit more. Basically, the hardest part with BM is the re-entry phase. A sucessfull system, required a lot of testing, and as you probably know the Agni II was only tested 3 times, before it was declared operational. HC argues that most other countries did a lot more testing and failed a lot of times before they got it right. Either you buy the tech (you know who I am talking about) or you use a lot of time developing it your self.

Just to ruin your day, it is very likely that the TSP nuke tested was of a more advanced design, compared to the one India tested (I am of course assuming that the TN weapon failed).

All this does not really have any grave security implications, as TSP is smaller in size and can be hit in many ways. And against China, we do not really have a thing that they are really scared of. To scare them we require at least 200KT weapons with a range of at least 4000 km (it is too risky to station missiles east of B-desh).

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 27 Nov 2009 04:27

Or perhaps it was a hypersonic test vehicle and the failure is a cover for its non-ballistic flight.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 Nov 2009 05:27

This continuing failure of the Agni-II missile reminds of the PTA Lakshya and 2m dia Trishul missile.

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 27 Nov 2009 16:43

I have been tired of saying this for years in this forum , what makes us to believe all the reports in the media are always right.

Defence information are not leaked especially when it is related to strategic importance. Even if it is not succesful it will called as successfull. Agni-2 was tested in 1999 and there is no one who can confirm the missile tested this month is agni-2 only other then concerned scientists of DRDO and Army personel.

If i go to Vozag there is not a single person from navy who speaks about ATV , rightly so.....and here in this forum people are talking about the failure of the missile.Have trust in the system guys......cheer up......just a request and dont panic.....

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 27 Nov 2009 17:38

Marut wrote:This continuing failure of the Agni-II missile reminds of the PTA Lakshya and 2m dia Trishul missile.

To develop missiles and nuclear weapons one requires testing. The Indian Agni missile programme has been subject to constraints in the testing. Even China required 60+ tests to develop and verify their nukes. India carried out a single test and then did not do much after that. How on earth do we expect them to develop a TN device, that is stable and works?

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 27 Nov 2009 17:56

Sorry in advance for asking very basic and elementary questions.

Can anyone tell me what is so special about launching a missile at night? Why does one need daylight for launching a missile? Can the missile not "see" without light? How is this launch more complex or complicated than launches in daylight? What about launching missiles during stormy weather, dust storms etc.? In a war do we have to wait for fine summertime and noon day sun to launch?

Thanks in advance to the kind and gentle BR formite who can explain the same to a layman

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 27 Nov 2009 17:58

Raja Ram wrote: Can anyone tell me what is so special about launching a missile at night? Why does one need daylight for launching a missile? Can the missile not "see" without light? How is this launch more complex or complicated than launches in daylight? What about launching missiles during stormy weather, dust storms etc.? In a war do we have to wait for fine summertime and noon day sun to launch?

Well...though I am not that sure...but it has something to do with changed atmospheric conditions of night...!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Nov 2009 18:24

MCD-> CMD-> Credible(fission based) Miniscule (Prithvi based) Deterrent.

Good show at self disarmament. No need for any external pressures. Internal scientist elite will do the needful.

Even after so many flights the problem is warhead separation.

Maybe they are getting BARCitis.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Nov 2009 18:54

^^^
such a view is entirely unwarranted IMO, when all we have are some dubious media reports to go by. we are not yet in a position to comment on the test, if we ever will be.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 27 Nov 2009 19:21

It was a complete success (when) no question(s asked).
We can fool ourselves with all this tamashas and throw few Bharat Ratnas no problemo...

I say just buy some stuff from N Korea in food for missile program and move on to hyper missiles.

Raja Ram, very simple answer even Sivakasi rockets are visual joy when fired in the night. This is Agony

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Nov 2009 20:58

Raja Ram wrote:Sorry in advance for asking very basic and elementary questions.

Can anyone tell me what is so special about launching a missile at night? Why does one need daylight for launching a missile? Can the missile not "see" without light? How is this launch more complex or complicated than launches in daylight? What about launching missiles during stormy weather, dust storms etc.? In a war do we have to wait for fine summertime and noon day sun to launch?

Thanks in advance to the kind and gentle BR formite who can explain the same to a layman

India fires nuclear-capable missile

This failure "has nothing to do with the time of the day."

I THINK this launch had more to do with:

The launch also comes on the eve of a summit between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India and U.S. President Barack Obama.

than a day vs. night launch.

As far as the "failure" itself is concerned:

While there were no problems recorded in the missile launch and the first stage of the missile's separation, problems developed ahead of the separation of the second stage, with the missile going off-course, local media reported.

It is suspected that the container carrying the fuel did not separate, failing to give the necessary thrust, falling down on its own weight, instead.

Gulp ........................

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 27 Nov 2009 21:24

Ok no answer so far ......maybe, just maybe it is a case of tamaso ma jyotir gamaya? From darkness lead me to light? Who knows!

BTW another question - Is Umrao Das is the latest avatar of spinster or is this someone who misses him a lot and wants to keep his style on the forum alive

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Nov 2009 21:31

Rahul M wrote:^^^
such a view is entirely unwarranted IMO, when all we have are some dubious media reports to go by. we are not yet in a position to comment on the test, if we ever will be.

RahulM-ji,

It is one thing to classify the truth, but it is another thing when the tests fail. The missile tests failed and the Bums failed. If this is truth, then what is GOI trying to hide under the CMD hijab?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Nov 2009 21:36

RamaY wrote:
Rahul M wrote:^^^
such a view is entirely unwarranted IMO, when all we have are some dubious media reports to go by. we are not yet in a position to comment on the test, if we ever will be.
RahulM-ji,

It is one thing to classify the truth, but it is another thing when the tests fail. The missile tests failed and the Bums failed. If this is truth, then what is GOI trying to hide under the CMD hijab?

please find me a country which has 100% success rate for ballistic missiles. as to the last line I've no idea what that means. I'm not aware of anything called CMD in missile arena.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Nov 2009 21:38

Rahul M wrote: please find me a country which has 100% success rate for ballistic missiles. as to the last line I've no idea what that means. I'm not aware of anything called CMD in missile arena.

To add to this post: a very dependable Chinese missile, in the past month or so, lost its third stage!!!! IF that is of some comfort to anyone.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 27 Nov 2009 21:44

CMD - Credible Minimum Deterent?????

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2009 21:49

I simply do not understand the need for raking up the N test issue on one pretext or another , if that topic indeed captures Jingo imagination and people have some stuff to discuss then why not open a dhaga , subtle references to N test when a missile fails puzzles me.

Agni-II test failed as per reports , big deal we don't have any moratorium on missile tests so what's the issue ? the test can be conducted again .Since we all are speculating one can also say that since this was basically conducted by IA and most probably it was one of the randomly selected rounds from the inventory we are now talking about testing missiles which have been there in inventory for quite some time ,a scenario probably not encountered before as during the development and user trials it was the DRDO which was presiding over the tests of rounds which were relatively new.All in all we might be talking about degradation in performance of conventional explosives for stage separation specially in case of missiles stored over certain period of time, there can be numerous other possibilities too . We don't know.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 27 Nov 2009 21:55

NRaoji,

You mean DF-31/31A failed ? Not the KT-1/2 derivatives ? That is the only 3 stage missile in the prc arsenal. Do you have a source for this ? I would be interested.

As for others here:

The deterrent building process will be a tapasya. This is not understood by most people. In A II 's case , it would be unfair to blame DRDO as the DDM do when a more likely reason is poor quality control by the production agency, which is BDL these days. The only lesson here is that the delivery system building process requires regular testing at every phase. In A II case, development testing was fine. But transition to serial production after development has had its problems, which need to be ironed out.

A III and A V testing have to continue apace as independently as techinically possible. The regular process of testing
would lead to inevitable repeated successes - flaws that crop up will be inevitably ironed out. The more regular the testing, the determination to maintain the deterrent comes out clearly. This does more for credibility than anything else. Other than demanding sustained ballistic missile testing efforts, any criticism of the scientists is unwarranted andplays into the hands of those who want to disarm us.

The only thing DRDO etc can be possibly accused of is promising to the bureaucratic establishment something reliable in 3 tests (like our 3 tests =30 tests by others so on...) But what is the root cause of this problem if at all it exists ? The reluctance of the nehruvian pacifist establishment to seriously undertake these efforts. For instance, an honest claim asking for funding for say, 20 tettestests at the outset of an AII/ A III program may have led to these programs having never been cleared in the first place by the allknowing babus of the finance ministry.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 27 Nov 2009 21:57

that quite a convoluted logic.. how does a indian missile failure translate into less prepared PRC or napaks... such failures give additional courage to enemy to indulge in what it has been doing and much more..!!

That is true. But then, who is benefiting from leaking this news to the media? and how?

Or perhaps it was a hypersonic test vehicle and the failure is a cover for its non-ballistic flight.

Highly unlikely. Any non-ballistic missile tested will never have to be reported. One BM can be tested under the disguise of another BM. But a CM test will not be advertised even under the guise of a testing a BM.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 27 Nov 2009 22:03

AH chanikyan at work,
very dependable rockict of PRC failed therefore our agnoy failure is nothing because it is in development for for err how many years.... a little louder since 1986? today we are in 2009 that is 23 years.....

well now so in spite of so many tests and succesful induction there can be a failure but three point five tests are enough for H/2 bum ( like one by two chai, or ek chai ek empty...)

I for one dont believe Agni is failure , it is complete success and our enemies aafe now confident of our NFU...

Ngi saar Agni and our bum are Siamese twins if half successful bum mates with three fourth successful delivery rockit then we have to launch a thousand ships to get to troy....

our data is different our geology is diffrent our atmosphere is different,
but the sky is still above and the mud below

our bum goes up in air to form retrac and our rockit forms crater....

Chalta Hai, now should we blame IA or IAF or IN to go for import maal

time to give or enearth few more Bharat Ratnas

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Nov 2009 22:14

umrao das ji, could you kindly give it a rest to the flaming, viz. agnony, bharat ratna etc ?
I'm sure ridiculing scientists is apparently in high fashion this week but perhaps we should give it a miss on BR ? we, as in a bunch of poor deshbhakts are not after all so fashionable are we ?
incidentally, one failure of one missile and suddenly all missile scientists, current and retired are the butt of jokes on BR, one would be excused if he/she thought he/she was reading TOIlet or even pakdef !!

and suddenly people are found to develop selective amnesia about everything in between the prithvi and agni-2 test, nov' 2009. I'm sure agni-1, agni-3, AAD, PAD, shaurya etc are figments of one's imagination.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 27 Nov 2009 22:30

Rahul M wrote: please find me a country which has 100% success rate for ballistic missiles

NRao wrote: To add to this post: a very dependable Chinese missile, in the past month or so, lost its third stage!!!! IF that is of some comfort to anyone.

Our missiles have to do the job right. It does not matter how it compares to missiles or missile programs of other countries.

That kind of thinking will not help us improve. If it was a production or QC issue, this should have been expected way before this time. If such a crucial instrument like INS was replaced with an different version (indigenous or imported), we should have gone for more tests before induction into armed forces. Periodic tests should have been done post induction.

Does anyone have some idea about the cost associated with testing a single missile? I can understand DRDO lacking funds to do more than three tests, but doesn't the Army have enough funds to check their operational readiness and quality of their products over their lifetime?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2009 22:32

Raja Ram wrote:Ok no answer so far ......maybe, just maybe it is a case of tamaso ma jyotir gamaya? From darkness lead me to light? Who knows!

If the missile has sensor affected by temp differences it may be tested at day, dusk, dawn and night. For ex. NMD GBI which uses IR sensor was tested in day night combination to ascertain the response of the system. Same goes for other missiles having similar sensors. For whatever reasons, Akash system was also tested at dusk condition. Missiles like Python may not function properly when it is tested against object at noon condition, when the object is in the same axis to the Sun.

Second: In earlier days, testing a military system in war type situation at night involves more preparation and training as they have to do it in pitch dark or with min. light. It is quite a task which involves adequate planning even today.

It also may be a reason which Nrao alluded to. Every missile test has its own meaning.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 28 Nov 2009 00:54

That kind of thinking will not help us improve. If it was a production or QC issue, this should have been expected way before this time. If such a crucial instrument like INS was replaced with an different version (indigenous or imported), we should have gone for more tests before induction into armed forces. Periodic tests should have been done post induction.

Indeed periodic tests should have been done after induction. This is the lesson we must learn here. Hopefully, this lesson will be taken to heart. This is probably not the DRDO's or the army's fault. The fault is that of the neta/babu combination- which is the biggest restraint on repeated testing. They should not tie this testing up with diplomacy/politics.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2009 00:55

we should wait for what DRDO is about to say for these failures..

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Nov 2009 03:03

So the points coming out are:
DRDO was testing India-made inertial navigation system against previously foreign made one, maybe this Indian made INS they want on AGNI V, and they decided to try it on AGNI II instead of risking its failure on more precious A5. So this oppurtunity is taken to test maybe oldest missile on the stock to check out its performance and found out like Negi points out "degradation in performance of conventional explosives for stage separation specially in case of missiles stored over certain period of time".

As for Quality control point its not that they are producing thousands of tanks etc. Just 20-30 missiles how can that be an issue, knowing the importance of the article?