Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2012 23:33

FAS:New Nuclear Notebook: Indian Nuclear Forces, 2012

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 20 Aug 2012 23:40

Austin, Why are we posting news from FAS. It is mostly inaccurate regarding non american or western weapons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Aug 2012 10:14

The only accurate data will exist with the government of the respective countries the rest are always just estimates accurate or not.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Aug 2012 10:28

Surya wrote:doubt if it is really the good Dr

I doubt if there is a Rajaram Gopalkutty in DRDO. Google for the name and you get only this post and one post from PakIndiadefence.com. The comment exists on LiveFist though.

I think the internet can be used to fool people easily. Thousands of people fled Bangalore due to a hoax. And people on BRF believed the hoax email of Paki flag hoisting in Hyderabad and recommended "solutions"

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Aug 2012 14:27

And, no serving officer of GoI would use such foul language or show political leanings.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 Aug 2012 16:43

And, no serving officer of GoI would use such foul language or show political leanings.

exactly

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 21 Aug 2012 17:01

What would it take to have the Namica's Nag missiles module to be fitted on the Arjun chasis, I think the weight might be off but, you get a far better piece of hardware.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Aug 2012 17:25

^^^

Why do you want to do that, it will be an overly expensive platform. That only duplicates that capabilities of the existing NAMICA. The much better option will be to develop a portable launcher for the NAG and install it on the proposed LSV / future 4*4 platform. Resulting in 000s of additional missiles in service with the IA.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 21 Aug 2012 23:05

RIP NAG

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Aug 2012 23:33

Ajay Sharma wrote: Apart from most of the missiles under test failing to hit their targets, the tracked vehicle also "underperformed",

If true, the problems with the missiles are a bigger concern. The previous tests of the missiles alone had been successful. Problems with the carrier vehicle can always be fixed. It is basically just a modified BMP after all.

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Aug 2012 01:22

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 801047.ece

Drdo blames army for launching the missiles before they got a Lock on target. Conspiracy ? How long should the target acquisition by the missile take before launch - and what is involved- does the gunner acquire the target and pass it on to the missile - and was this process not done correctly ..if yes then should it not be the gunners / operator/ human error and not a missile error ?

Anyone have more information on this ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Aug 2012 01:43

Link Above^

Induction of Nag missile likely to be delayed further
Y. Mallikarjun

The induction of anti-tank Nag missile is likely to be delayed further, with three of the four missiles failing to hit the target and the missile’s carrier, Namica, falling short of the Army’s expectations during recent user trails, which were halted midway.

In all, eight trials were planned, between July last week and August 4, with a reconfigured Namica. However, the tests were called off on August 1.

The induction of the missile has already been delayed, with the Army seeking many changes to Namica, after previous trials, to make it lighter and improve its amphibious performance. Hence, two reconfigured vehicles — each developed by L&T and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) — were tested in the Mahajan Field Firing Range in Rajasthan. Sources in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) attributed the failure to lack of proper conditions for the missile’s seeker to lock on and track the target. Several problems cropped up in the functioning of the automotive systems that were sourced from the Ordnance Factory. However, mobility trials for 300 km of the scheduled 1,000 km were conducted on the two carriers.

{So the Namica, made by L&T and BEL both had components from OF and they developed problems. Trials were halted after 1/3 distance covered. Were these parts tested before integration by the two firms? Did the firms have their own tests prior to handing over to Army?}

The second major hiccup surfaced when one of the two missiles failed to hit the target on July 28. While one, tested for a range of 2,500 metres, hit the bull’s eye, the second failed to destroy a target 700 metres away owing to a problem in the seeker.

In the subsequent trials on August 1, two missiles missed the targets positioned at 1300 metres and 2,500 metres.

Disappointed with the failure, the Army wanted DRDO to further ruggedise the Namica and schedule retrials after six months.

The DRDO sources virtually faulted the Army for the failure of the two missiles. There was no adequate thermal contrast for the seeker to lock on and track the target before the missile was launched.

The Army was clearly told to ensure that the seeker locked on and tracked the target before the missile was fired. But, in both the instances, the missiles were fired before the seeker locked on the target.

{So the guided missile was released in the Diwali rocket mode?}

The missile has a range of four km with ‘top attack’ and ‘fire-and-forget capabilities.’ The ‘top attack’ enables the missile to nullify the explosive-reactive armour of modern battle tanks.

The sources said that more than 50 trials had so far been conducted, and the Army carried out 20 of them. The missile failed only on four or five occasions.

The bigger question is why and how did the first test on July 28th succeed!

Again there seems to be an inherent dislike in IA for DRDO products that leads to such fiascos. Maybe IA needs to be open minded in conducting such trials or let a third party do the evaluation.

Namica problem seems to be substandard Ordnance Factory (OF) parts as usual. The two firms need to have a good supply chain management in place and not accept and use the products from the OF system.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 22 Aug 2012 02:10

A new interpretation of the GSQR will magically appear, that will say Procurement Jernails always wanted "lock-on after launch".
Soon they will import heavy ATGMs that has to be dragged to the targets by seeing-eye dogs as a "panic buy due to yevil DRDO letting us down".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2012 09:37

I dont know if MANPADS have it , but Nag launcher should have a sw lock that prevents firing the missile until the seeker has achieved lock and flashed a "focus achieved" signal on viewfinder and/or emit a low beep-beep.

this will prevent nervous or less trained users from loosing it off prematurely.

part of product design also covers these user cases, not all users will be highly trained engineers with lots of unspoken context knowledge that guides their actions. assume bull in china shop who does all the wrong things in the wrong sequence and work backwords to funnel the bull into the bullpen we want.

it will also prevent deliberate attempts to fail tests like this - if such were the case ever.

atleast in Sw with lots of event driven inputs like buttons and sensors, this is very hard to do and needs a lot of effort to lock things out in each state.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Aug 2012 10:36

^^^^

The more important question I have is this, what made the NAG tests a success in the last year and when it was cleared for induction pending the modification in the NAMICA.

kit · Post by **kit** » 22 Aug 2012 10:43

RIP nag ?? If people knew how many developmental fiascos the Americans went through before getting their stuff working there won't be talk like this .. They had billions on similar projects but it is a learning curve .. Every nation has to accept it and move on .. I would be surprised if a sophisticated missile like nag worked perfectly from the first try !!! Guys ! Wake up I would give nag quite a leeway from seeing what it seeks to accomplish . Let it do just that .. It will probably be better than any contemporary ATGM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2012 11:05

my favourite is the little american tank with a 152mm gun that was airdropped into jungles. every time it fired, would leap some 2 feet in the air and almost fall apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2012 11:09

Every time there is such trials take place there is always a Armed Service view and DRDO view on what went right or wrong.

A representative of MOD should be present in all crucial trial and act at independent arbitrator on the performance of such trials.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 22 Aug 2012 15:17

If you provide a SW lock, then the complaint would be "The friggin missile didn't even launch!! Let us all go home now!!"

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Aug 2012 18:04

Singha, Rohit

Saw an Israeli documentary 'My first War" regarding the 2006 ops

just shot by an Israeli trooper and has candid conversations and gives a boot view of the assembly areas etc

also pictures of the hits on the Merkava

where the missile penetrated the merkava it was just like the T 62s from yom kippur war

all smashed up inside and only bits and pieces to clean out

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2012 18:21

yeah so much for anti-spall liner, strong square jawed bolt on "nugget armour", chobham tech etc...mortality is pretty much 100% if a good heavy ATGM hits the side hull , top or rear aspects of any tank. I have a photo book of the US cavalry march to baghdad in OIF. apart from iraqis, the canals and soft mud areas proved very adept tank killers...a good number of tanks just sank into the mud or water and refused to come out. multiple tank crews drowned after tanks fell in canals and rivers.

to get results on must massively overmatch in tanks , IFVs, artillery and logistics and khan did just that.

infantry imo is becoming a mere sideshow in offensive warfare. still useful in mountains and forests though or in mopping up ops.

hence I dont understand the religious wars on the internet over which rifle is the most badass and cool looking and how INSAS < FN-SCAR . imo even a rugged , reliable and cheap AK56 type is enough to cause fair amt of damage.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Aug 2012 18:55

Singha wrote:my favourite is the little american tank with a 152mm gun that was airdropped into jungles. every time it fired, would leap some 2 feet in the air and almost fall apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

I love the weight of this little thing 15.2 tons. This is precisely the type that can be air lifted. I wish we had something in this weight class. Heavy lift rotary systems can lift this thing.

kit · Post by **kit** » 22 Aug 2012 21:07

The DRDO should provide the army with user manuals and allow only those who can be certified to touch their weaponry.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 22:32

Singha wrote:<SNIP>infantry imo is becoming a mere sideshow in offensive warfare. still useful in mountains and forests though or in mopping up ops.

hence I dont understand the religious wars on the internet over which rifle is the most badass and cool looking and how INSAS < FN-SCAR . imo even a rugged , reliable and cheap AK56 type is enough to cause fair amt of damage.

That may be the case of areas like Iraq or Europe in WW3 - but in any India-Pakistan/Sino-India shooting match, the Infantry man is going to be in the forefront. In case of India-Pak slug fest, from Tutrok to Fazilka, it is going to be the infantryman who will carry the day. As the Russians learned bitterly in Chechnya, in built-up or semi-urban areas, there is no replacement for the humble infantryman. Assal Uttar is doable with double accuracy and efficacy today. His best companion is the GOD OF WAR - The Artillery. Need to get that on the double.

BTW, I've uncovered evidence through time wasted researching for PA ORBAT on internet that PA is allocating MLRS in batteries - since the number of such batteries that I came across (for example, 460 MBRL Battery, Multan) seem to be in single digits, I suspect the proliferation is happening at the Corps level.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2012 22:38

with good soviet style artillery using 300 guns per km of the desired breakthrough point (say 6 km wide, 1800 guns), even well motivated jihadi/razakar types should be able to manage.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Aug 2012 22:45

This is what Ajai Shukla had reported last month:

The DRDO’s unusual frankness in admitting a problem has been matched by the army’s unusual helpfulness in working through it. The army has decided to buy 13 Nag carriers (NAMICA, being developed by BEL and L&T), and 443 Nag missiles in the current state. These will be deployed in areas like Punjab, where close-set villages, groves and electricity transmission cables seldom permit visibility beyond 2.5 kilometres. When the DRDO demonstrates improved performance with a better seeker, a larger order will follow.

Not sure if the bolded part refers to Namicas "with improvements" (which recently failed trials) or the existing Namicas.

Singha: preventing the user from launching the missile without a proper lock may not be ideal either. Sometimes, the user may want to do exactly that, if he is in a shoot and scoot mode. It will make sense to provide other cues like an audio-beep when the lock is achieved + training. Such issues during user trials are normal in any product development. The IA itself has said that it will use the initial order of 443 NAGs for familiarization. Our DDM, as usual, blows up the issue and it finds an echo chamber in Shiv Aroor's cranial cavity

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 23:17

kit wrote:The DRDO should provide the army with user manuals and allow only those who can be certified to touch their weaponry.

You think IA picks up people for these test randomly as if, 'chal, aaj tu nishana laga kar dhek'?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 23:18

Singha wrote:with good soviet style artillery using 300 guns per km of the desired breakthrough point (say 6 km wide, 1800 guns), even well motivated jihadi/razakar types should be able to manage.

Only if it was so simple...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 23:24

ramana wrote:<SNIP>

The bigger question is why and how did the first test on July 28th succeed!

Again there seems to be an inherent dislike in IA for DRDO products that leads to such fiascos. Maybe IA needs to be open minded in conducting such trials or let a third party do the evaluation.

Namica problem seems to be substandard Ordnance Factory (OF) parts as usual. The two firms need to have a good supply chain management in place and not accept and use the products from the OF system.

Dislike for DRDO product? Where does the article say that IA has asked for improvements in Nag Missile? It is the author which alludes to problems in the Nah induction because of the fact that 3 missiles failed to hit their targets. Where does it say that IA complained about the missile? The problem was identified with the vehicle and that too, in systems which it seems were sourced from OFB. Why are we blaming the army for this? They've already given the go ahead for 13 NAMICA and 443 Missiles in present configuration of NAMICA.

Shouldn't the DRDO have done its homework as far as the vehicle is concerned? It seems blaming the army at drop of the hat has become a norm here.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Aug 2012 23:26

PA is allocating MLRS in batteries - since the number of such batteries that I came across (for example, 460 MBRL Battery, Multan) seem to be in single digits, I suspect the proliferation is happening at the Corps level.

Rohit - Is this happening because PA is unsure of IA's axis of attacks, and hence, parceling out rocket batteries in penny packets? It could be that the IA Corps opposing the particular PA Corps that have these distributed MBRL batteries have simultaneous attack axes available. I would think other than the strike corps, in the IA, these would be X and XII Corps.
What do you think?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 23:36

Avik wrote:
PA is allocating MLRS in batteries - since the number of such batteries that I came across (for example, 460 MBRL Battery, Multan) seem to be in single digits, I suspect the proliferation is happening at the Corps level.
Rohit - Is this happening because PA is unsure of IA's axis of attacks, and hence, parceling out rocket batteries in penny packets? It could be that the IA Corps opposing the particular PA Corps that have these distributed MBRL batteries have simultaneous attack axes available. I would think other than the strike corps, in the IA, these would be X and XII Corps. What do you think?

Could be as simple as lack of resources.

Khan distributes one battery per division with Corps Artillery Brigades holding complete regiments. IMO, we also hold bulk of MBRL assets in Artillery Divisions. Should percolate to at least Corps Artillery Bdes apart from Artillery Divisions as the number of system rises. I think we're targeting 2 x regiments per year in 2012-2017 Defense Plan period.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Aug 2012 23:40

^^^BTW, I'm writing a paper on the strategic significance of South Punjab and Rajasthan Sectors (and their Pakistan counterparts) for my blog...will discuss in detail the aspects about possible strike options for India and Pakistan. Decided to do this so that people can better appreciate the role of canal based defenses in case of Pakistan - that I've started writing about.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Aug 2012 17:05

I say we need to revamp DRDO0-IA and IN, IAF participation development process. The "R" process is fine, but not the "D".. we need them both sit for proof of concept, design and RE much much ahead.. They can't be wasting money like this, and at the end, IA want this, and that.. this has to happen cyclic, and much earlier, and not at user trial stage.

There is fundamental problem in the process.. there is no point to keep complaining either IA or DRDO. Correct and move on.. fix the loopholes. right now, right away.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Aug 2012 09:10

rohitvats wrote:
kit wrote:The DRDO should provide the army with user manuals and allow only those who can be certified to touch their weaponry.
You think IA picks up people for these test randomly as if, 'chal, aaj tu nishana laga kar dhek'?

How do you explain the weapon (Nag) being fired before target lock ?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 24 Aug 2012 09:14

manual over ride. after fire acquisition of target. just like a canister lobbing the missile from sub with high pressure air and once above water level the engine ignites and the missile homes in.

As far as I know Nag has seeker problem and DRDO is trying very hard to get mastery over the top kill...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Aug 2012 10:10

^^^

A modern 3rd Gen ATGM has two modes Lock on before launch & Lock on After Launch. It seems that they were trying the latter. The former has been perfected and demonstrated by the DRDO in the previous tests.

Any way, it seems that the delay was more on account of modification in the "NAMICA", the missile it self was OKed in the last years trials. So why is the missile being put on trial this year. Have they changed the missile as well?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2012 10:13

might be new thermal imager (better discrimination) on NAMICA from Sofradir of france.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Aug 2012 10:50

Pratyush wrote:^^^

A modern 3rd Gen ATGM has two modes Lock on before launch & Lock on After Launch. It seems that they were trying the latter. The former has been perfected and demonstrated by the DRDO in the previous tests. Any way, it seems that the delay was more on account of modification in the "NAMICA", the missile it self was OKed in the last years trials. So why is the missile being put on trial this year. Have they changed the missile as well?

I don't think the trials were about the missile...it seems too short a time to try out and perfect a seeker on the missile in the time frame between last test and this one...these tests were about the carrier and on board sensors...and to test the same, they have to fire the missile(s). As for missiles failing and all that, well, I don't see any complaint about the missile. Even if it was IA's operators which fired the missile in a manner outside of SOP, then it is their headache. God knows what they were trying to do. I'm not buying this one side of the story from DRDO about missile failure due to operators.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2012 17:54

when its time to kick ass, there is a point beyond which small/cheap/chankian does not pay, only big will do, very big and brawny.
this is what happens when you lock a bunch of A-quality engineers in a room, with a unlimited scope to think up a solution.

Burya...a 97 ton, mach3, 6000km range cruise missile with a 3t H-bomb payload...in the 1960s
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/burya.htm

I would give a years wages to be allowed to go back in time and work with such revered seers of the craft, maybe shoot off a few test rounds....and just hang around in those days...must have been a awesome engg driven env back in those days when ppt were not invented and MBAs and stock price didnt rule the workplace.

no wonder quantum leaps in engg and science were made in the 50s and 60s....

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 24 Aug 2012 19:16

^^^^ very true, sometimes brute force, speed and range is what we need, i think the Shaurya however is one big leap we took, I find many uses for this thing, from a ultra long range SAM to an extended range Radar killer. They need to develop different versions of this asap. Shaurya could be the weapon to knockout the enemy's long range air defences, strike a crippling blow the enemies AF and even perhaps a shore based long principal ship killer.