Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 12 Mar 2013 23:00

stand corrected, Victor's post above states a distance of 20km inland, glide distances of that range aren't possible with mechanical malfunctions, its most likely a navigation error, GPS or not

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Mar 2013 23:24

Bheeshma wrote:The missile without booster will still weigh 1200 kg so I doubt LCA can carry 2. Unless like you said a light weight 700-800 km range one is made.

This is what you can load on the 8 hardpoints of LCA. So you see 1200kgs is not a problem. Also, the payload of LCA is 4000 kgs. So after the 2 Nirbhays, you could put a 1200 liter fuel tank on the center pylon and still have the capability to carry at least 2 air to air missiles.

But, they are going to certify it on the Su-30 first. Cemilac has been doing it for some time now.

On the 600 km range missile, I do not know what is happening on the LRCM front.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 13 Mar 2013 00:29

self deleted: will post after comparing with photos of actual launch.
Thank you pankajs for pointing it out.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Mar 2013 00:38

Sameer Please post a short text description. Thanks, ramana

So NDTV gave fake debris pictures?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Mar 2013 00:52

sameer_shelavale wrote: http://techrevol.com/br/fake-nirbhay-cr ... y-ndtv.jpg

I do not know about the debris, but the missile in the NDTV video was definitely not the one that was fired. Compare the nose section of the flying missile to the one in NDTV video.

The crash photo should be compared with the launched missile and not the one Pallava Bagla is standing next to in the video, the one DRDO folks are working on. Check page 24 of this thread.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2013 01:52

if you see how the drdo men were behaving with pallav/ndtv journo is very evident (from the video) is all just a setup for ndtv. i can't believe so many technicians would be so busy fixing things with screw drivers (

) in the video. typical show for ndtv.

.

the two missiles were totally different (not from the name, but from the produce).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Mar 2013 01:59

Are you saying the one that got away is a different vehicle!

Anyway no big deal in flight path deviation. I guess they had to shut engine down as it was already over populated area?

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Mar 2013 02:08

indranilroy wrote:LCA should be able to carry upto 2 Nirbhay missiles on it's two under-wing hardpoints and may be one on the central hard point. Rafale and MKI will be able to carry more.

I am jumping the gun here. I think DRDO should develop a shorter version of Nirbhay too. Something like the 350-700 km range, about 500-800 kgs in weight. It should be easy to do.

The length of Nirbhay is around 6m. This may be bit too long as almost all fighter-launched large air-to-surface missiles are between 4m and 5m. Brahmos-1 being the exception at around 8m. As a result only a large fighter like the MKI can carry it in its centreline pylon. BTW, Brahmos-3 ASM is going to be 3m shorter than Brahmos-1.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 02:14

OT ALERT - Just for fun.

SaiK wrote:I can't believe so many technicians would be so busy fixing things with screw drivers ( ) in the video.

This reminds me of a conversation between some foreigner abduls and me. We were close enough, so it was a very frank discussion.

German abdul (about civil works): I find the Indian system of working a little inefficient. For every 4 people working, there are 2 people waving hands at them on how to do their work.
Singaporean abdul: And another person with hands in pocket checking if the two men are waving their hands correctly.
Japan abdul: Hmmm! This doesn't happen in Japan.
Me (with no good retort): India has a large population.

Okay back to serious discussions.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 02:48

srai wrote:
indranilroy wrote:LCA should be able to carry upto 2 Nirbhay missiles on it's two under-wing hardpoints and may be one on the central hard point. Rafale and MKI will be able to carry more.

I am jumping the gun here. I think DRDO should develop a shorter version of Nirbhay too. Something like the 350-700 km range, about 500-800 kgs in weight. It should be easy to do.
The length of Nirbhay is around 6m. This may be bit too long as almost all fighter-launched large air-to-surface missiles are between 4m and 5m. Brahmos-1 being the exception at around 8m. As a result only a large fighter like the MKI can carry it in its centreline pylon. BTW, Brahmos-3 ASM is going to be 3m shorter than Brahmos-1.

If LCA can carry the KH-59, then it should be able to carry Nirbhay as well. Also the 1200 ltr drop tanks are not much shorter. Typically they would be 5.5 mtrs in length.

Image courtesy: Ajai Shukla

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 05:41

Repeated post removed

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 05:41

Via Tarmak007.
DRDO draws inspiration from aborted Nirbhay mission | Next launch in 8 months: Avinash | Intentionally missile flown closer to coast for tracking: Sources

By Anantha Krishnan M
Express News Service
Bangalore: Nirbhay, India’s first subsonic cruise missile had a bad outing on Tuesday, after scientists terminated its maiden test-firing 20-minutes into its mission. Celebrated as Bangalore’s first missile, Nirbhay travelled almost 250 km towards the target after the launch, but a technical snag dented its designated flight path, forcing the Range Safety Wing at the Interim Test Range (ITR) in Balasore to abort the mission. (Termination or abortion is done by switching off the engine.)
Designed and developed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) in C V Raman Nagar, Nirbhay’s failure is now being dubbed as ‘partial success’ by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). “The lift-off from the canister, the booster separation, ignition of cruise vehicle engine at high altitude, wing deployment, control guidance and way-point navigation capabilities have been proven. For a missile designers these are crucial milestones achieved,” Avinash Chander, Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems), DRDO told Express from Bhuvaneshwar.

He claimed that for a first flight, the objectives achieved are encouraging. “We were able to launch it as a missile first, then convert show its longevity as an aircraft. We will study what went wrong and get back with another missile within six-eight months so as to go the full distance. We have enough data from this flight and we have tested all stages of the missile, which was very crucial,” Avinash said.

A top source who didn’t want to be identified said that the missile was travelling closer to the Odhisa cost. “We intentionally designated the path closer to the coast so that we could track it. But when it started deviating, we had to abort the mission taking into account the safety of the coast. It will take a week to assess which part malfunctioned and the initial data analysis will tell us more,” the official said.

ADE Director P S Krishnan said that his team will ensure that everything falls in place next time. “Nirbhay met 90 per cent of its mission parameters. It was the first test and we will quickly find out from the data which part gave up. We will fix it and prove the missile’s full-duration (1000 km) capabilities,” Krishnan said.

DRDO’s decision to go undercover till the launch of the missile is attributed mainly to the snub it received for letting out too many details of sensitive projects. A senior military intelligence official said that DRDO was warned twice in the recent past, a fact Express couldn't verify independently.
Copyright@The New Indian Express

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 13 Mar 2013 06:35

Also note that the booster might be shorter or eliminated in air launched version making it shorter.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 13 Mar 2013 06:46

^Tarmak has Nirbhay picture with yet another paint job. In a matter of day, I have seen 4 Nirbhay missiles with different paint job on each one of them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2013 06:58

Possibly this was the first test intended as launch right up to target.

If you think about it, the are several things that need to be tested separately.

1. Booster rocket, topple/tilt of vertical launch into horizontal mode
2. Rocket burnout, separation, engine ignition, wing deployment
3. Transition to engine powered flight like a UAV
4. Navigation to target.

I am sure 1, 2 and 3 have been tested several times. And 1, 2 and 3 worked.

4 has never been tested before. It failed

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Mar 2013 07:17

If the missile had been more successful and flown farther in its 1,000 km range instead of just 250 km, it may have crashed into Vizag or Chennai. They made a very poor decision to fly it so close to the coast and it is sheer luck nobody was killed. The strange thing is they could track Akash, Agni, Brahmos, Prithvi, Shourya but not Nirbhay?

indranilroy wrote:We will fix it and prove the missile’s full-duration (1000 km) capabilities,” Krishnan said.

Why the need to "prove" anything? Their job is just to do their best under the circumstances. It was the first test and these things are notoriously unpredictable even for TFTA scientists.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2013 07:21

Victor wrote: They made a very poor decision to fly it so close to the coast and it is sheer luck nobody was killed.

-1

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2013 07:31

Actually, they should now focus on the technologies that ADE developed rather from other labs. Other labs have been launching canisters more successfully and more stable now, relative speaking.

Not sure, we have the capability yet to test part technologies like just dropping from air/release from an a/c- mki, and then test the flight parameters alone, and once more robust, they can continue with canister+booster launch tests.

Or astra type ground base launching could also work, without the booster.. over the sea hovering is easier to manage that thickly populated areas for cruise test.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 07:32

All the others fly at much higher altitude. The only way to continuously track a object flying low is through a chase plane which is what i suggested.

Btw in deployment mode the booster needs to cut out at a height of around 300m , turbofan kicks in and the missile goes to a lower level of around 100m and settles into its path if you see videos of naval thawk launches. Here in this test it seems they pushed the missile much higher before starting turbofan and flew it at 12000ft....perhaps it was a test of crossing over passes in the himalayas and arakan which our missiles will need to do by tomahawks do not. Thats a special need for our cruise missiles to be able to operate at 15000ft above sea level where surely some derating will occur and ambient temp much colder. Looks like they were gather thing cheen specific data point in first test itself.

Imo with a launch from assam or west bengal we are only 100m asl. Rather than waste precious fuel climbing 10'000 feet to reach tibet and yunnan altitude they will use a comparatively meaty booster in that phase and start turbofan engine much later than a tomahawk in this anti cheen mode. I like it, shows they are planning from day1 and not blindly following anyone.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 08:05

Nugget from toi print edition today among the usual snipes at drdo.

Missile was tracked by warships, ground radars and a su30mki. Might not be surprised if the sukhoi followed it all the way to impact.

Also fault with ins system is prelim root cause being said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2013 08:07

To me the interesting thing is that Nirbhay is the 3rd missile after Brahmos to have this vertical launch and topple by 90 degrees for horizontal flight. That is such a fascinating sequence that I can watch it over and over and over again on Brahmos launch videos.

It reminds me of my gilli-danda days. You hit the gilli on the ground to launch it into a spin, then you use the danda to stabilise the spin and get a second touch (which doubles your points) and then give an almighty thwack to hit it ss far as you can.

Brahmos is very similar. First the vertical launch and then "blam!" a rocket motor on the side topples it. It should topple and fall to the ground but at the exact micosecond - "Blam"(2) another rocket motor fires on the lower side to stop the Brahmos from toppling any more.

And before it can fall to the ground horizontally the main rocket motor goes "whamwhooosh" and the missile is flying horizontally.

A brilliant engineering achievement. Even copying can't be trivial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUVMsuLW2EE

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Mar 2013 08:15

Right, a Su-30mki with high rez cameras is needed. If needed, it can blow up the missile with cannon. Bonus: a target area 1,000 kms away in the middle of the Bay of Bengal with warnings to ships and aircraft in the area would send a very useful message to cheen that a) this is Indian sphere and b) their oil route thru Myanmar is as vulnerable as the route thru Malacca.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 08:22

The videos captured by the sukhoi yesterday would hopefully pinpoint the problem areas soon.

It will not be released on livefist though. The guy is positively glowing yesterday and making anti drdo snide remarks right an left as if drdo are guilty of being cheats by default and he will be the judge in the kangaroo court that convenes on his blog every night.

Tarmak might be given more imagery or some video soon maybe.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 13 Mar 2013 08:40

shiv wrote:To me the interesting thing is that Nirbhay is the 3rd missile after Brahmos to have this vertical launch and topple by 90 degrees for horizontal flight. That is such a fascinating sequence that I can watch it over and over and over again on Brahmos launch videos.

+1. Whenever I need my jingo adrenalin boost, that's the first video I watch. After it its Agni V.

Here is the pik on Tarmak007:

Watch behind there is another Nirbhay missile in launching platform in the picture.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 09:06

There are surely multiple missiles ready to test, but no point firing another until failure is root caused.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2013 09:10

and shoot fixed.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2013 09:16

shiv wrote:Possibly this was the first test intended as launch right up to target.

If you think about it, the are several things that need to be tested separately.

1. Booster rocket, topple/tilt of vertical launch into horizontal mode
2. Rocket burnout, separation, engine ignition, wing deployment
3. Transition to engine powered flight like a UAV
4. Navigation to target.

I am sure 1, 2 and 3 have been tested several times. And 1, 2 and 3 worked.

4 has never been tested before. It failed

Even 4 might have been tested but in a limited range mode (say 100 - 200 Km, by masking it as a Lakshya test) due to lack of a 1000 Km range facility. So, DRDO didnt really have a choice but to announce the test, once it was decided to test the full range.

Several K-15 tests were done hush-hush because that was an underwater baby from day 1 and they had the ocean to play with

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2013 09:19

Singha wrote:Nugget from toi print edition today among the usual snipes at drdo.

Missile was tracked by warships, ground radars and a su30mki. Might not be surprised if the sukhoi followed it all the way to impact.

Also fault with ins system is prelim root cause being said.

Chorgupta, in his blog, claims that there was an MKI tailing Nirbhay. I dont believer 90% of what he says, but if this is indeed true, that's very good news.

He also has a trajectory predicted-versus-actual Google map for this test.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 13 Mar 2013 09:21

Singha wrote:There are surely multiple missiles ready to test, but no point firing another until failure is root caused.

Agreed. 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.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 13 Mar 2013 09:24

I am 95% sure it's malfunction of a transducer.

I don't buy the theory that navigation sub system was not tested, actually I propose that it was one of the most tested and proven one.

Also flying close to the odisha coast they would have contingency plan to shoot down errant missile by a chase aircraft or coastal missile battery or even ship on high seas .

So that we can simulate using this event to test our anti CM systems as well say in One shot

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 13 Mar 2013 09:35

Victor wrote:Right, a Su-30mki with high rez cameras is needed. If needed, it can blow up the missile with cannon. Bonus: a target area 1,000 kms away in the middle of the Bay of Bengal with warnings to ships and aircraft in the area would send a very useful message to cheen that a) this is Indian sphere and b) their oil route thru Myanmar is as vulnerable as the route thru Malacca.

As per TOI today, an MKI was indeed following the Nirbhay. So they would have got a clear picture of the:

a) Control surfaces,
b) The deviation
c) Also how efficiently it was destructed. If it was over enemy territory or International waters it would ensure no sneaky bandit would run away with the wreckage.

JMT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 09:59

perhaps thats why they let it crash over land rather than sea.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2013 10:07

Singha wrote:perhaps thats why they let it crash over land rather than sea.

Recovery of the wreckage+telemetry info+chase aircraft video should give one heck of a lot of info about why it failed.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 13 Mar 2013 10:36

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... e__st__860

Arun_S:

Earlier news reports have thouroughly confused armchair warriors, with speculation of a reusable bomber that carried bombs and comes back.

DRDO has said it is like and better than the unkill tomahawak (THK). It can drop many bomb-lets each weighing few kgs on its way just like THK, doesn't mean it is meant to fly back in which case it be called a UAV or UCAV. Unlike THK however Nirbhay can fearlessly hover around kill zone waiting to choose and engage the target (s) at a time and preferred attitude of engagement (I.e. azimuth of engagement). Better than tomahawk, its engine inlets are recessed thus RCS is really very tiny (compared to THK or its likes) even from frontal perspective. Side perspective RCS is even tinier.

From the available picture one can see the center-of-gravity of the craft as flies the 1000 km (location of wing hing).

IMHO DRDO has done a V good job at the design. Good test.

One can only imagine the smarts of teh system. Navigation is expected to be very accurate thanks to recent advances we have seen in other flying vehicles. DRDO report points to intelligence to do target acquisition late in the game, meaning its tip has range of optical/multispectral/hyperspectral sensors, sensor fusion and more importantly classification, recognition and prioritization of target field. They may start with simpler algorithm, and then graduate to the bleeding edge (if only they choose the person who has the know-how in teh country).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 13 Mar 2013 10:40

pankajs wrote:I do not know about the debris, but the missile in the NDTV video was definitely not the one that was fired. Compare the nose section of the flying missile to the one in NDTV video.

I concur. The missiles are different.

DRDO Colour Scheme – White with Yellow Bands at top and bottom and a yellow spiral ribbon from top to bottom
Army Colour Scheme -- Arid Desert
Air Force Colour Scheme -- Grey
Strategic Forces Command – White Upper Part & Brown Lower Part

Usually, the above is followed.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Mar 2013 10:58

Singha wrote:perhaps thats why they let it crash over land rather than sea.

If they lost control, did they have a choice?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Mar 2013 12:48

Might have been a good test of the Phalcons too if they had been used to track Nirbhay.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2013 14:16

pankajs wrote:
Singha wrote:perhaps thats why they let it crash over land rather than sea.
If they lost control, did they have a choice?

They had enough control in that even a failure caused no damage to third parties and the wreckage was recovered. I wonder if the engine was merely shut off and the plane allowed to crash, leaving self destruct for a more serious failure.

It is easy to code for self destruct by saying that unless the missile receives data from monitoring stations every half second it will self destruct.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Mar 2013 14:19

Yes, the engine was shutdown, it was not self distructed , like they do to SLV's

Once the missile went off its original trajectory, its engine was remotely shut down causing it to fall near the coast.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8098/I ... est_Flight

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Mar 2013 14:21

it just kept going for sometime, till it lost speed so thats why the debris was found on land