Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 14 Mar 2013 02:42

Prem Kumar wrote:PratikDas: I was referring to the Block IV design when I said it resembled Nirbhay. I didnt see what Block 2 or 3 looked like (your image didnt get pasted properly). I Googled around and found some images. I see what you are saying. Yes - absolutely, Nirbhay will have lower RCS than these previous THK designs. Its interesting that THK Blk IV, which has loitering capability was first tested only in 2002. If Nirbhay already has it, it means we have made several generational leaps and caught up within a decade of Khan. Not bad at all!

Thanks for letting me know. I've moved the image of the older Tomahawk in my earlier post to imageshack.

Regarding loitering, I found something very interesting regarding the "Quick Strike Tomahawk" or QST and its loitering capability:

Image

[Speculation] What if the SDRE scientists tested a S-shaped set of waypoints within a short range, as if testing obstacle avoidance, in the very first flight test and the onboard navigation computer had a "does not compute" moment? Unspeakable's Google Earth picture above does show that the navigational error originated at the knee point in the route. Perhaps that knee point was not a neat single change in orientation but a more complex obstacle-avoidance route. Although I would think that the problem in the extract above would've been simulated and resolved, it's still possible if the waypoints were updated midflight and the route had to be autonomously computed by the onboard navigation computer. [/Speculation]

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pentaiah » 14 Mar 2013 02:56

It's like my GPS when I miss the way point
It recalculated and says make a illegal Utirn at the next exit
Ok got it

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Mar 2013 03:11

gagan ji, they could use magnetic field maps over water.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 14 Mar 2013 03:12

pentaiah wrote:It's like my GPS when I miss the way point
It recalculated and says make a illegal Utirn at the next exit
Ok got it
:rotfl: :rotfl:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Mar 2013 03:16

^that was similar to the joke when apple iOS 6 had buggy gps directions when a new-yorker jumped into tiger's (bronx zoo) den.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19837
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Mar 2013 06:27

Arun again nitpicking at the postman.! I asked a simple and legitimate Q as to why close-up pics of the missile's body had so many rivets when BMos appears to be very finely worked.I also gave a comparison with the cruder finish of the MIG-29 when it first was seen in comparison with the SU-27.So who's denying anything about Russian wares being crude? They have for the better part of time always been cruder but more robust than western wares.That was Soviet Cold War philosophy.But here we are talking of products in the 21st century where a lot of dev. in composites,etc. has been made and for good reasons,particularly that of stealth for a lowspeed subsonic missile which can be better tracked by radar if metallic.All pics of Brahmos and even the Klub posted above show a far more refined products.As for the locking "clunk".There are missiles whose locking mechanism does not produce such a loud noise. Sad,but some posters appear to lack objectivity in their criticism.Pentaiah has spoken about protruding rivets affecting laminar flow.The NBay rivets in the pics did not look at all countersunk but protruded.

I have cross-checked with the video report.The shutlines,esp. below the lettering is poor-dents(?) above the lettering with heaps of rivets protruding all around.Check it out for yourself.I can only surmise that with BMos,we had a JV with Russia where the range of the missile was below 300km conforming to MTCR rules.With a LRange missile like Nirbhay,we've had to develop it ourself and have gone for the easiest method to begin with.There were two other missiles shown in the triple launcher.They could've been dummies or actual missiles.Given the publicity of the launch,one must speculate that earlier tests were made,just as with the K-15 and that these were mostly successful.Why the confidence of success was so high.There is no harm in a failure,look at missile dev. worldwide,both east and west.Its success is vital as the lack of a LRCM for the three services affects our strike capability,where in the last wars esp. in Iraq,Libya,etc.,the role that these missiles played was fundamental to success.

It would be very interesting to have comparative pics/sizes of cruise missiles of the Nirbhay class posted,as has been done with another Novator product, to examine the diff. characteristics of design.From the pics with the boffins around it the wings seem to be about 2m in length and the missile along with booster closer to 9m in length than 6m.I doubt if it can be carried by a Tejas,but certainly a Flanker.Without the booster,its dimensions appear that it has been designed to be launched from std. torpedo tubes.The three cell launcher is novel,allowing for larger salvoes to be fired from land.

PS:The roots of the failure.Propulsion,navigation or communications? Since the test was publicised much in advance,as someone suggested at the outset,could there have been some intereference/sabotage during the flight with either navigation or commns?
Last edited by Philip on 14 Mar 2013 07:08, edited 4 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Mar 2013 06:56

Prem Kumar wrote:
SagarAg wrote:But 6-8 months to fix the errors before next test when 90% of the mission objective were met? I was hoping for the next test within 3-4 months after such a looong wait but 6-8 months IMHO is on the higher side if they don't need to change a major design/structural component of the missile. :-o


Its because of a disease called the LCA-syndrome: whereby our collective media will self flagellate themselves for every failure and project their lack of self respect onto DRDO. The various reports yesterday talked of how this failure is a "blow", "setback", "fizzling" and the inevitable comparison with paint-job Babur and how China is 1000 years ahead in this field.

The real timeline is: 1 month to determine root cause, 1 month to fix it & 6 months to retest the cr@p out of it, so that Muharram season doesnt start again


Well said sir :rotfl: :rotfl: esp that last line.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4100
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srai » 14 Mar 2013 07:20

ramana wrote:I know it sounds heretical but DRDO should declare this one as a fail and go back to the drawing board.

But for the grace of God, its deviant flight path and flight termination could have led to population losses.

Shutting down engine is hardly the right flight termination system.

And how does 25 min or 250 km equal half the range when it is stated to be 1000Km.

They should have said we had a flight anomaly during the first test flight and are investigating it.


Well, it's not exactly black or white. On a flight test as this there are many test points from VL launch to booster separation to level flight to various maneuverings to final target destruction (CEP + warhead). We know the first few test data points succeeded while the second half failed as a result of course deviation. Even here, they were able to test remote engine switch off for mission abort. So how can it be called simply as "fail"?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Mar 2013 08:15

failure depends on what is termed as success. what are the success criteria? what is failure to one, can be successful to a sub-component level person. SUT is a failure. period.

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20296 » 14 Mar 2013 08:24

Humans fail tests as they are evolved, Nirbhay as a system has just performed. Its upto humans to analyse and understand what they would like it to do in future and change it. Call me Indian diehard optimist :D but truth and nothing else I shall say.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Mar 2013 08:33

They have until june before monsoon will close launch window until august. I would say go for a early retest if root cause is clear.

There is no need to publicise it. The official test can be after monsoon.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 14 Mar 2013 14:19

It seems due to low budget, second test can only come 8 months later.IIRC the budget was only Rs. 40 crore for whole project which is less than the cost of Single Harpoon Missile which we have purchased.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 14 Mar 2013 14:36

^^Still we have people complaining of rivets.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nits » 14 Mar 2013 18:16

From IDRW - What went wrong for Nirbhay

What exactly went wrong? This million dollar question has started haunting the DRDO big wigs after the Tuesday’s fiasco in which India’s first indigenously built sub-sonic cruise missile Nirbhay deviated from path forcing the mission team to destroy it mid-way.

The fearless missile, as its name suggests, left the residents of a seaside village in Jagatsinghpur district scared as its wreckage’s fell in a cashew nut orchard, just 50 meters away from human habitations after it was blown off through self-destructive mechanism.

While an inquiry has been ordered to ascertain the reasons behind the debacle, DRDO scientists are analyzing the data collected during the mission. The missile debris collected from the village also has been sent to the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur for further verification.

Though the local defence authorities are tight lipped on the causes behind the technical disaster, reliable sources at the test range told ‘The New Indian Express’ that the missile veered off as snags developed in its inertial navigation system (INS), which leads a missile till its target area.

“Besides, there could be metallurgical malfunction in any of the sub-systems, which, we suspect, failed to sustain the aero-dynamic pressures. The vibration in the engine is a pointer to the fact,” the sources informed.

Even as the DRDO claimed that the missile covered nearly 200 km in 20 minutes before its deviation from the intended flight path, the source said the missile traveled much less as it fell in Gadaharishpur, an area hardly 100 km from the launching complex aerially.

Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems) of DRDO Avinash Chander however ruled out that there was fault in the INS or metallurgical error. “We suspect the technical glitches might have developed one of the sub-systems in the missile system after it attained certain height and cover certain distance besides displaying some excellent maneuvers,” he said.

Chander, the man behind Agni missiles said it would take time to pin-point on the exact cause of the fiasco. “Data collected during the mission is being analysed properly at the defence laboratory. It requires time as we need to cross-check all data very thoroughly. Once we ascertain the faults, there will be absolutely no problem to fix them. The missile will again be ready for trials within some months,” he added.

Nirbhay is India’s first home made cruise missile having a strike range of nearly 1,000 km. Though already it has two versions of 290-km range supersonic cruise missile BrahMos in its arsenal, the weapon has been developed in collaboration with Russia.

It is not for the first time that a missile was destroyed mid-way as it deviated from the path. On July 29, last year Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos crashed mid-air after a vertical lift-up and fell into the Bay of Bengal before covering its pre-coordinated path.

Earlier on September 24, 2010 Prithvi-II missile fell down immediately after take off. Later it went straight horizontally and hit the seaside wall at Chandipur test range before catching fire spreading panic among defence personnel who ran away to save themselves.


This is first time i am hearing this thing (bold text) about Prithvi; reminds me of Diwali rockets ;)

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Vipul » 14 Mar 2013 18:29

DRDO says aborted Nirbhaya missile test "80 % successful".

A day after the long-range cruise missile 'Nirbhay' deviated from its course during its maiden launch off the Odisha coast and had to be destroyed in mid-air, scientists of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) today began the post-mission analysis to locate the fault.

The sub-sonic missile that was launched from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea in Balasore district, about 230 km from here, deviated from its intended course after travelling approximately half its course.

Scientists of the DRDO who were involved in the development and launch of the missile met at Chandipur and started analysing the telemetry data.

"We should not rush to any conclusion because it involves a large amount of data. We are doing a very, very thorough investigation," a scientist involved in the mission told IANS.

"It will take at least a month," said the scientist on the expected time required to complete the investigation. He said the post-mission analysis committee has already started looking into the matter.

Describing the test, senior scientists said the launch was perfect and the booster established the missile in cruise mode correctly. Nirbhay flew more than 200 km along the Odisha coast, skimming the Bay of Bengal, watched by radars along the coastline. The navigation too was perfect, with the Nirbhay correctly touching the first two ''way-points'', which marked the route that the missile was to take.

Things went wrong after 15 minutes of flight, when the missile deviated significantly from its path. Since it was close to the inhabited coastline, a self-destruct mechanism inside the missile was activated to destroy it.

Avinash Chander, DRDO's missile chief and a key architect of the Agni ballistic missile programme, said, ''I would call the test 80 per cent successful. The Nirbhay demonstrated that it could take off correctly, establish a cruise profile, and navigate to its initial waypoints.

''These were new performance parameters that we had never tested before, so we are satisfied that the test proved those. But then, one of the sub-systems malfunctioned and we had to terminate the test. All that remains is to determine why this happened and to rectify the flaw.''

The Nirbhay missile is claimed to be similar to the US Tomahawk, which can fly like an airplane and is capable of travelling up to 1,000 km.

Developed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a DRDO laboratory based in Bangalore, Nirbhay could be launched from land, sea or air. The surface-to-surface missile has good loitering capability, advanced navigation system and can provide high degree of accuracy.

It can travel at a very low altitude at a speed of 0.7 mach (nearly 840kmph) and has the ability to fly around the target till it gets an opportunity to attack it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Mar 2013 19:44

Lets just move on and Await the next test. The whole thing about 30% success or 70% success resembles the sikularism and halal food debates. Each can twist and interpret in their own way. In all cases the end state is short of full success in this test.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Mar 2013 19:49

the fault could be something quite simple like a hydraulic failure or an actuator failure - sometimes its the small things that are problematic

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52342
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Mar 2013 20:30

Lalmohan wrote:the fault could be something quite simple like a hydraulic failure or an actuator failure - sometimes its the small things that are problematic



Most often its electrical connections: connectors snapping open, cables severing what not.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2949
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 14 Mar 2013 21:12

pentaiah wrote:It's like my GPS when I miss the way point
It recalculated and says make a illegal Utirn at the next exit
Ok got it

:D

1. Well these things must have been rectified, if any, during stimulation stages. Though chances of that can't be ruled out as this, after Nag, is a first subsonic missile made to hover and maneuver where Navigation challenges are quite different from that of super/hypersonic missiles.

2. X-tail config, again a different one than the regular type. Quite challenging than the regular type. So there are chances of this might be the root cause.

3. Then you have usual ittaddiss like wiring faults, faulty components, faulty sub systems etc....

If they say, 80 to 90% successful of mission objectives, it means, whatever they wanted to test they achieved the result 90%. Missile must have failed but not the mission. so why 8 months ? they have to prepare the missile for the next step in development where the mission is expected to be different.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2949
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Kanson » 14 Mar 2013 21:17

indranilroy wrote:Yeah! you guys are right. Most probably it will be used by the IAF and IN. But I will still stick to my opinion of this being the first flight :-)

couldn't follow up on the discussion your were into. Nirbhay is advertised as a tri service missile.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52342
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Mar 2013 21:20

- First they need to review the data and determine root cause.
- Then they need to confirm its the root cause by ground testing.
- Then they have to implement corrective action.
- And then flight proof the fix.
So give two months average for each task. 8)

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 14 Mar 2013 21:22

There is no reference to seeker in this test-missile?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1633
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sid » 14 Mar 2013 21:49

vic wrote:There is no reference to seeker in this test-missile?


That's a good point.

But I think its only intended for fixed land based targets hence it might just have navigation equipment on board.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 14 Mar 2013 22:02

Sid wrote:But I think its only intended for fixed land based targets hence it might just have navigation equipment on board.


Even in case of fixed targets you need a seeker to find the target that you want to strike amongst a bunch of other potential targets. Nirbhay also has one and since the missile didn't reach it's destination hence no talk about the seeker.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1633
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Sid » 15 Mar 2013 01:25

Sagar G wrote:
Sid wrote:But I think its only intended for fixed land based targets hence it might just have navigation equipment on board.


Even in case of fixed targets you need a seeker to find the target that you want to strike amongst a bunch of other potential targets. Nirbhay also has one and since the missile didn't reach it's destination hence no talk about the seeker.


How will that seeker know what to lock on at such long ranges? Coordinates must be given to missile before its launch.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2013 02:18

Tarmak007 has the pics of the article which was tested.
Image

It is interesting to see the change in CG with and without the booster.
Image

Image

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby RamaY » 15 Mar 2013 02:26

^ given these pics Nirbhay is designed to be air launched from get go?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52342
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Mar 2013 02:49

yes. Booster is need for ground and ship and sub launch. THk has same type of booster.

NGL-01 was the test article?
Do we see the notation in the earlier pics?

The ceckerboard pattern is for visual/measuring rotation along the long axis.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19837
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Mar 2013 03:53

DRDO chief VK Saraswat has been given the red card-no extension of service, despite a most elequent plea on his behalf from former chief and pres. HE APJAK.He has had an excellent track record and in the opinion of many deserves an extension.However,there is speculation that he has been the victim of external forces because of his advocating the development of AGNI-6.In recent times however,there has been some sniping at him with accusations of going beyond his brief in budgets,etc.

AGNI-5,a great success which gives us the ability to hit targets anywhere in China,has a range est. at 5,500+km.The PRC say more.It is believed to also carry upto 3 MIRVs and will be inducted by next year .AGNI-6,a 55t missile, is supposed to have a range of 8-10,000km.which would put India in the truly "big league" of nations with true ICBM capabilities,but this is not what the US want,as AGNI-6,which is also supposed to have a sub launched version,would then make India capable of striking anywhere on the globe using its subs.The development of AGNI-6 ,which will have say some upto "10 MIRVs",appears to be VKS's great goal,of giving India true ICBM capability and though he announced that trials would begin in the near future,the GOI has yet to give its formal approval.

In the aftermath of P-2,a renowned defence journalist told me that we had been warned by the US not to cross the "Lakshman Rekha" of developing delivery systems beyond 5,000km.The denial of an extension to VKS appears to some to be a result of intense pressure upon the top GOI honchos from a certain superpower who want to stifle India's nuclear and missile capability,especially the capability of long range strike from its "triad",the ability to reach its continental shores.The excuse being given in the press report of VKS's denial of extension,is that the GOI after the AW scandal wants to accelerate indigenisation of def. wares! True,there is much profligacy in the DRDO,discussed to the death here and elsewhere,but the absence of a "hire and fire" policy towards babudom and project heads who need to be given substantial powers to succeed,the money required and time frames in which to achieve results cannot be laid at the feet of VKS.

PS:Back to rivets.When launched from torpedo tubes,what would be the effect of rivet protrusions (quite visible in the pics posted by others) on the tubes? All models of our desi lightweight and heavyweight torpedoes have displayed a perfectly smooth finish to them.Would the missile then need a liner when sub launched and is that possible with its current dimensions,or is it meant to be launched from larger dia tubes.?

PS:Did anyone see the front page news report a few days ago with the astonishing figure that over "2000" babus are in the US "studying" in various univs? Many of these babus do not come back,picking up lucrative posts in intel/firang organisations and return after a few years to rejoin the service! No punishment is enforced fro this,they are simply labelled as not available or whatever and pick up all their perks,etc.Despite warnings from security services about this trend the GOI has done nothing to punish this dereliction of duty.

PPS:Vic,though the missile will definitely be far cheaper than anything equivalent from abroad,and no one will sell us such a type thanks to the MTCR,the fig. of 40 cr. appears to be underestimated.The missile has been in dev. for over a decade from reports and to imagine that a paltry fig. of just 4 cr. a year was spent on it when we have spent tens of thousands on the LCA over 3 decades looks inaccurate.Given another two years of intensive testing,we could see the missile ready for production and installation by 2015.The demand for such a missile is going to be very high.The US rapidly ran out of stocks of THawks from GW1.The BMos experience could certainly help.To quote a scientist in another context,the LCA,he was quoted as saying that ,setting up a production line of the LCA was "a technology by itself",that we were deficient in it and needed to obtain support from abroad if needed.It appears that we haven't.We will need a thousand+ missiles at least.
Last edited by Philip on 15 Mar 2013 04:16, edited 2 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Mar 2013 04:01

Right, you need a SAR image to fine tune your target, and further guided by gps/ins combo.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Virupaksha » 15 Mar 2013 04:03

Per principle, we shouldnt support extensions - unless under tremendous scarcity issue. They should be extremely rare.

If Saraswat could not develop strong seconds under him, I would say that itself is a failure of Saraswat.
I believe this is the leadership team of DRDO

Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, DS & CC R&D, CEO, BRAHMOS
Shri Avinash Chander, DS & CC R&D (MSS)
Shri S Sundaresh, DS & CC R& D (ACE & SI)
Dr V Bhujanga Rao, DS & CC R&D (NS)
Shri SS Sundaram, DS & CC R&D (ECS & LIC)
Dr KD Nayak, DS & CC R&D (MED, MIST & Cyber Systems)
Dr G Malakondaiah, DS & CC R&D (HR & M)
Dr K Tamilmani DS & Chief Executive, CEMILAC & CC R&D (Aeronautics)
Dr. Manas K Mandal, OS & CC R&D (LS)
Lt Gen Anoop Malhotra CC R&D (R&M and Implementation)

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby RamaY » 15 Mar 2013 04:03

Philipji

Do you think GoI is so penetrated that even the army chiefs and DRDO chief etc candidates can be influenced by external powers?

If true it shows how compromised the political/babu circles in dilli are.

I don't but I think the rot started with the NRIfication of Neta/Babu progeny.

Sad indeed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2013 05:07

Philip sir,

The series produced missiles will be much smoother. This is a test article. It needs to be opened and closed multiple times to add/access/remove/refit various subcomponents.

Building a composite cover for nirbhay is not that difficult. ADE's other products like nishant and lakshya all have composite bodies.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pranav » 15 Mar 2013 06:26

Philip wrote:PS:Did anyone see the front page news report a few days ago with the astonishing figure that over "2000" babus are in the US "studying" in various univs? Many of these babus do not come back,picking up lucrative posts in intel/firang organisations and return after a few years to rejoin the service! No punishment is enforced fro this,they are simply labelled as not available or whatever and pick up all their perks,etc.Despite warnings from security services about this trend the GOI has done nothing to punish this dereliction of duty.


Yes, these are standard tactics. Many defense personnel are also "study" abroad and are targeted for recruitment by foreign intel. Some of our Supreme Court Judges also have links to foreign NGO's.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Mar 2013 07:26

And they mostly are all sent in batches to usa univs by the goi...everyone from forest service to police to rbi have these schemes.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby geeth » 15 Mar 2013 09:04

PS:Back to rivets.


What was displayed to the Jarnails could be a mock up of the missile, which need not be of production standards..

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 15 Mar 2013 09:21

^+1 The irritating thing is that he does not even stop for a moment to consider that. "Hey, its made in India, so it MUST be sh!tty."

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Victor » 15 Mar 2013 09:33

Just noticed that Nirbhay is a low-wing design, that is, the wings are located on the lower half of the missile. This is a puzzling choice because small wings (relative to the fuselage) have an exaggerated effect on a missile and make them inherently unstable. A cruise missile is therefore already more unstable than a conventional aircraft and to maximize stability within design constraints, wings are typically located on the upper half of the fuselage or at most in the middle in almost all similar missiles and even in glide bombs. Rough aeronautical rule of thumb: wings on shoulder=stable and slow, wings under fuselage=unstable and fast. Wing dihedral also comes into play but in missiles, it is difficult to achieve. It would be interesting to know what led to this design choice.
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Mar 2013 10:17

maybe a plan for evasive and fast manouvers vs more stable cargo plane type designs. with proliferating of high quality SRSAMs and SPAAGs around high value targets, just stealth is not enough because these are waiting where you want to hit.

the boxy and sluggish KEPD350/JASSM types will get hammered out of the sky by Spyder type SRSAMs...vs a python5 its a no-contest. only bush wars with no AD make these dabbas look good.
Last edited by Singha on 15 Mar 2013 10:44, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Mar 2013 10:36

those are intelligent rivets! ;) they help in reducing the cruise missile to keep below mach 1.
and now we can see better arguments coming up. :twisted:


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests