Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby prashanth » 21 Dec 2016 21:26

An apt quotation from Samuel Beckett for this moment..

Ever tried, ever failed,
No matter.
Try again, fail again,
Fail better!


This weapon, once mastered will become the workhorse of our armed forces, be used from land, sea and air. It will be manufactured in thousands.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2016 22:22

All in all a sorry December. One I would like to forget

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Bheeshma » 21 Dec 2016 22:31

Why?? I have full confidence in A-5 success.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 21 Dec 2016 22:32

shiv wrote:All in all a sorry December. One I would like to forget



Why. Every test increase the knowledge base.

Nirbhay is more complex than Tomahawk with all its loiter and waypoints navigations for first time development.
Tomahawk got that much later.

When are the Astra trials for low level flights?
The high and medium were acceptable.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2016 22:37

Of course there are plenty of positives. This cruise missile thing needs a solid review committee to go through every component. What upset me is the "inside information" that not everyone was happy with the state of preparedness before launch which turned out to be an accurate statement of things to come. There is something more than meets the eye in these leaks - but it may not be all negative. There is definite cloak and dagger stuff that goes on. But it was the Navy incident that weighs on my mind -and this added to that.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby darshhan » 21 Dec 2016 22:40

Well slight OT here.

The one thing that whole Nirbhay development process(including this failure) proves is that in all likelihood Babur and raad missiles are mostly shit. Wise men would understand this. Ditto for many chinese missiles.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 21 Dec 2016 22:46

shiv wrote:Of course there are plenty of positives. This cruise missile thing needs a solid review committee to go through every component. What upset me is the "inside information" that not everyone was happy with the state of preparedness before launch which turned out to be an accurate statement of things to come. There is something more than meets the eye in these leaks - but it may not be all negative. There is definite cloak and dagger stuff that goes on. But it was the Navy incident that weighs on my mind -and this added to that.


Link: viewtopic.php?p=2091381#p2091381

A few scientists involved with the project have, however, expressed concern as the missile is being pushed for trials despite shortcomings in it.

"The snags in the flight control and navigation software (FC&NS) have not been sorted out. Strangely, the authorities are pinning illogical hopes on its success. Our fingers are crossed," said a source.



The disagreement expressed in HK Rout's article about snags in FC&NS would have shown up much later in flight. The current test got aborted while still in the booster phase. Booster would be about a minute or 60 secs. Since it was aborted in two minutes booster separation could have damaged the fins or some such thing. As it was veering to the land mass the turbofan was working.


So the issue has nothing to do with the misgivings expressed in the article.

BTW, FC&NS would have been proofed on hardware in loop (iron bird) on the ground. Not in the air. Usually these results would be limited distribution as it could have unknown modes of flight trajectory.

I submit this is a simple component issue. Not a 'utter failure' as the grand pooh bah proclaimed.


----------------------------

Here is link to the successful 2nd test

http://indianexpress.com/article/trendi ... in-flight/

it has video.

Shows that booster separation happens in less than two minutes after transition from vertical to horizontal flight.
So present test transitioned to horizontal flight after booster separation and was headed wrong way.

Maybe the wings did not flip out correctly and the vehicle was headed wrong way.
That would account for the comment about 'reliability of a component'.

“The booster engine in Nirbhay's first stage started working. The missile lifted off from its launcher. But it started veering dangerously towards one side in less than two minutes of its lift-off,” DRDO officials said.

The missile started flying beyond the safety corridor and threatened to fall on the land. So the “destruct” mechanism in its first stage was activated and it was destroyed.

The DRDO sources called the mission “an utter failure” because the missile started veering towards one side in the “initial phase” of the flight itself. They said, “It is a big failure. We should have a thorough re-look at what has been done so far. Out of four Nirbhay missions, three have ended in failure.”

The sources ruled out any problem with the missile's configuration. They said it could be “a hardware failure” that led to the mission being aborted. “This is a hardware element issue. This is a reliability issue with a component,” they explained.


Heck they did tell what happened and in out rhona/dhona we ignored it.

One of the wings or fins did not flip out as designed. This caused it to fly askew towards land.

The two hour gap in announcement was a quick failure diagnosis by DRDO. Good job.

"Utter Failure" was poor choice of words.

Back to lurk mode and await the next few tests planned per the NOTAM.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ranjan.rao » 21 Dec 2016 23:07

darshhan wrote:Well slight OT here.

The one thing that whole Nirbhay development process(including this failure) proves is that in all likelihood Babur and raad missiles are mostly shit. Wise men would understand this. Ditto for many chinese missiles.

Hope Liu doesnt read this..thankfully we dont have TFTA biradars from western point..
that said I disagree with you, as they will have lots of learnings from russian and american missiles from which they were copied!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3583
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Dec 2016 01:22

Failures are to be expected but testing pace is too slow. Is modi throwing money at this? He should be.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6886
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby nachiket » 22 Dec 2016 01:36

Cain Marko wrote:Failures are to be expected but testing pace is too slow. Is modi throwing money at this? He should be.

Modi can't fix everything, especially just by throwing money at the problem. There needs to be some accountability from the team working on this. Especially why they haven't been able to diagnose and fix the issues despite an entire year having passed since the last test. And from whoever it was who ordered the test to proceed despite knowing that the issues weren't fixed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 02:07

Cain Marko wrote:Failures are to be expected but testing pace is too slow. Is modi throwing money at this? He should be.


If you notice the many times DRDO had a long interval between the tests. They usually have significant changes to eh test article. Its not just test of the same thing again.

For example Agni_TDS first test and second test were totally different configurations.

One thing I noted in Nirbhay is all article keep emphasizing the weight of payload of 300 kg and its nuke delivery also.
With its accuracy of 10m proven in 2nd test, that's some thing for TSP to think about.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 22 Dec 2016 02:07

Ramana sir,

One minute is well past booster separation time. I hope that the project leadership of Nirbhay is taken away from ADE and given to DRDL. The latter has much better project management track record.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 02:17

It will delay the program by a lot.

I think as flight vehicle veered in a wrong direction it could be a fin problem. Most likely the vertical fin. It got skewed to the right. Assuming the flight path was North to South.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 22 Dec 2016 02:51

I don't know. It could have been uncommanded, or wrongly commanded.

DRDL is one of the two lead agencies right now.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 22 Dec 2016 02:54

Does anybody know about a SANT missile from RCI? If not, we will come to know soon as they are making a SANT Missile Model for display.

Added later: Looks like a relative of the SAAW missile.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 22 Dec 2016 02:55

Indranil wrote:One minute is well past booster separation time. I hope that the project leadership of Nirbhay is taken away from ADE and given to DRDL. The latter has much better project management track record.

The Nirbhay is an ADE led program!! :shock:

I always assumed it was a DRDL program. I hope this doesn't go the way of the Nishant and the Rustom.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 03:01

It is an ADE program form beginning.
Reason is its a cruise missile and not a ballistic missile which flies past the atmosphere and re-enters.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4925
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karthik S » 22 Dec 2016 04:28

Viv S wrote:
Indranil wrote:One minute is well past booster separation time. I hope that the project leadership of Nirbhay is taken away from ADE and given to DRDL. The latter has much better project management track record.

The Nirbhay is an ADE led program!! :shock:

I always assumed it was a DRDL program. I hope this doesn't go the way of the Nishant and the Rustom.


It can't go that way. It's too important a weapon to go that way. But hoping the next test is not in Dec 17.
Last edited by Karthik S on 22 Dec 2016 05:54, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 05:17

Indranil wrote:Does anybody know about a SANT missile from RCI? If not, we will come to know soon as they are making a SANT Missile Model for display.

Added later: Looks like a relative of the SAAW missile.



Did you see the sketch or line drawing?

They said it would be in appendix. Nothing there.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9923
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby sum » 22 Dec 2016 05:48

Ramana saar, didnt Rout quote the exact words of a scientist in his report?

'Jinxed' Nirbhay missile fails another test

A reliable source said the weapon system developed snags in its flight control software and veered off the intended trajectory. The destruction command was given in less than four minutes post launch, and the missile plunged down into the sea.

“The engine lost its thrust a couple of minutes after take off. The flight control hardware and software failed to actuate the control surfaces,” the source said.
Last edited by sum on 22 Dec 2016 07:01, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 06:53

Its a pity that most news reports are just copies of the PTI report.

E.g. NDTV by Pallava Bagla:

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/drdos-nu ... st-1640500

Not one has any insight or comments from scientists.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4103
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Dec 2016 07:10

I remember Dr. Avinash Chander saying during interview with Saurav Jha's question about engine of Nirbhay. That "Nirbhay is coming up in big way..." I had thought at that time that Nirbhay will be productionised in a few months.

Is cruise missile very difficult to make compared to ballistic missile?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 22 Dec 2016 08:53

^ Far too much chest beating we seen the same thing with AAD why the need to advertise the missile and claim it's ready soon putting more pressure. In other hand we seen how Barak 8 was kept tight lipped.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 900
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby symontk » 22 Dec 2016 23:15

failures more than SLV-3 or ASLV. real review needs to happen. unfortunately lot of careers will suffer

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18055
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 23 Dec 2016 02:54

Indranil wrote:Ramana sir,

One minute is well past booster separation time. I hope that the project leadership of Nirbhay is taken away from ADE and given to DRDL. The latter has much better project management track record.



Entire point of Nirbhay, Rustom, LGB is to create a second missile, flight vehicle house rather than DRDL alone.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18055
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 23 Dec 2016 02:58

Manish_Sharma wrote:I remember Dr. Avinash Chander saying during interview with Saurav Jha's question about engine of Nirbhay. That "Nirbhay is coming up in big way..." I had thought at that time that Nirbhay will be productionised in a few months.

Is cruise missile very difficult to make compared to ballistic missile?


Removing Chander and shaking up the established team at DRDO was one of Modi's initial blunders. That and the division of responsibilities between Mr Reddy and Mr Christopher has not worked out. Decisions by committees like the RRao one are often devoid of meaningful changes and cause more issues than answers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 23 Dec 2016 06:20

Indranil, Software gets proven in hard ware in loop simulator. Untried software isn't loaded into test vehicle.
I think a hardware mechanical component did not work.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4925
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karthik S » 23 Dec 2016 06:40

Reports have mentioned that this is one component issue. Because they know where the problem is, can we expect the next test to happen sooner than the usual 1 year intervals?

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 403
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ashishvikas » 23 Dec 2016 12:58

EXCLUSIVE: DRDO's cruise missile project Nirbhay on verge of closure
By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 23rd December 2016 01:52 AM |

BHUBANESWAR: Once a pride for Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay is on the verge of closure.

A highly placed source told ‘The New Indian Express’ that the project is likely to be closed as the missile has failed to deliver desired results even 12 years after the project was launched. A review of the project will be conducted shortly.

Nirbhay is the country’s first indigenously built long-range sub-sonic cruise missile which can be compared with America’s Tomahawk in terms of its capability. Designed by Bengaluru-based Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), the missile was designed to fly at different altitudes ranging from 500 meters to four km.

Launched in 2004 at a cost of Rs 48 crore, the projected date of completion (PDC) for the prestigious project was December 31, 2016. However, under trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as expected after four attempts in the last four years.

The project has been plagued with difficulties as the scientists are still struggling to fix the problems in the flight control software and navigation system while some others point fingers at the hardware.

While the Research Centre Imarat (RCI) blamed ADE-developed software, ADE was pointing towards the defective hardware supplied by RCI. “However, it could not be ascertained which is defective, whether the software or hardware, but Nirbhay missile failed in its fourth attempt,” an insider said.

There has been problem with the control software since beginning. The RCI had developed navigational hardware for their applications and it was adopted by ADE for Nirbhay. There are always differences between ADE and RCI regarding its functional efficacy, the source claimed.

Defence experts have raised questions on the requirement of such a subsonic missile, which can cruise at a speed of 0.8 Mach, when supersonic cruise missile BrahMos, developed jointly with Russia, is already inducted in the armed forces.

BrahMos, which flies at a speed of Mach 3, has a strike range of 290 km. Though Nirbhay can strike targets 1,000 km away, with India joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), it can now develop long range cruise missiles as joint ventures.

While initially the expected cost of ‘Nirbhay’ was around Rs 10 crore per piece, DRDO has so far spent more than Rs 100 crore on R&D and trials.

DRDO Chief Selvin Christopher and Project Director of Nirbhay Vasanth Sastri did not respond to the calls and queries from ‘The New Indian Express’. Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister G Satheesh Reddy, however, said he is unaware of any such move.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 10--1.html

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Philip » 23 Dec 2016 13:16

This is a disaster if true.There is a need for a LRCM like Nirbhay,as amply demonstrated by Russia with its 2500km Kalibir missile in the Syrian conflict.
When Nirbhay was first rolled out with pics, I did comment upon the poor body of the missile when compared with that of BMos.It is hard to understand how with outsourcing in India from vendors,there are two different qualities. Perhaps the BMos JV ,which is a separate company established under the leadership of Dr.PIllai got its act together superbly,whereas the Nirbhay crowd have failed to make the grade. Dr.PIllai's book about the BMos "mantra" is a must read.BMos is a sensational success by any standard.

Thus the issue of hardware,software,etc, being the root cause is understandable. Now that we're in the MTCR club,it shouldn't be too difficult to find a JV partner from Russia or Israel to help us develop a suitable LRCM.The size of BMos,perhaps the BMos-M variant to be developed, which must be brought down to torpedo tube size. Perhaps the BMos team should be given the task of developing a suitable alternative.

http://www.newsmax.com/
Trump Says US Nuclear Arsenal Must Be 'Greatly' Expanded
Trump Says US Nuclear Arsenal Must Be 'Greatly' Expanded
(AP)
President-elect Donald Trump said Thursday the U.S. should enlarge its nuclear arsenal, an apparent reversal of a decades-long reduction of the nation’s atomic weaponry that came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country’s arsenal should also be strengthened. [Full Story]

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1082
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby RKumar » 23 Dec 2016 14:12

Come on guys ... so far we spent only 100 Cr on Nirbhay project starting 2004 with expected project completion Dec, 2016. Even Barak-8 was delayed by 4-5 years and people were all crying foul but at the end it is success. It is the similar case regarding LCA also.

There are no shortcuts to learning, it is much better to have tens of failed trials and longer development period then directly importing the systems.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Neela » 23 Dec 2016 14:44

Philip wrote:This is a disaster if true.There is a need for a LRCM like Nirbhay,as amply demonstrated by Russia with its 2500km Kalibir missile in the Syrian conflict.
When Nirbhay was first rolled out with pics, I did comment upon the poor body of the missile when compared with that of BMos.I


What were your inferences based on the poor body of the missile? That the missile's navigation systems/component/actuators are faulty?
The problem here is that you making a conclusion even at a time when the developers would be trying to understand the problem.
You are harming your own credibility here with such statements.


What we know
- engine lost thrust
- flight control software failed to actuate control sufaces
- missile veered of intended path.

If the engine lost thrust , then issues cascade.
If power is extracted from the engines for the electronics, then FCS actuation is a consequence and not the source of the problem.


People like Hemant Kumar Rout are only guessing when sourcing statements like this:
"The snags in the flight control and navigation software (FC&NS) have not been sorted out
.
How is engine failure related to Nav software or flight control ?

Ps:
Nirbhay uses Saturn's 36MT engine.
Didnt HJT-36 also have problems with saturn's AL-55l?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 23 Dec 2016 17:51

Perhaps the BMos team should be given the task of developing a suitable alternative.


That will be Brahmos-M scheduled for testing this year. Nirbhay costs 10 crores and Brahmos costs around 15 crores if mini can come in around 7-10 it would be a game changer. It can be carried by Mig-29 and Rafale and can be fired by 21 inch torpedo tubes.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohiths » 23 Dec 2016 18:27

Nirbhay's turbofan should be replaced with an integral ramjet engine which has lot less moving parts and India has sufficient expertise developing it. This will reduce the range substantially. However 1200 km is not necessary right away. They should also remove nice but not necessary features like loiter and terrain hugging.

It should be a simple missile which goes from point A to point B and should be developed cheaply and mass manufactured in large numbers. Brahmos should be the top end missile with all bells and whistles.

kurup
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 14:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kurup » 23 Dec 2016 19:03

Agni-5 NAVAREA issued

BAY OF BENGAL AND INDIAN OCEAN (.) CHARTS 31 INT 70 71 (.)

EXPERIMENTAL FLIGHT TRIAL SCHEDULED FROM ITR ON 26 AND 27 DEC 16 FROM 0300 TO 0700 UTC IN

DANGER ZONE BOUNDED BY 20-48.36N 087-02.58E, 19-03.39N 086-26.30E, 06-21.99S 087-05.29E
06-16.38S 089-21.89E, 05-59.58S 091-37.54E, 19-11.29N 088-02.33E, 20-48.76N 087-07.40E AND
15-24.17S 087-38.14E, 25-19.43S 088-26.10E, 25-10.82S 091-02.58E, 24-53.78S 093-37.96E, 14-59.66S
092-35.90E

2. CANCEL MSG 270800 UTC DEC 16

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 23 Dec 2016 19:28

Philip wrote:When Nirbhay was first rolled out with pics, I did comment upon the poor body of the missile when compared with that of BMos.

So you knew from the first moment that it had a 'poor body'...

BMos is a sensational success by any standard.

A customized Russian missile built under license. Of course, you'd think its a 'sensational' success. Goes without saying really.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby sarabpal.s » 23 Dec 2016 19:40

LoLots paid lips service in news and here .
Only 100cr spend.
It is just development flights so the inherited risk involved,
If government closed this project (vrrh unlikely) at this movement than it put questions on it start up logic.
There is lot thing which can be tested on the ground like flight control regime moter fuction actuator / engine.
we don't need to overreact to these paid service..

Btw how muvh is Brahmos development cost?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23631
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby SSridhar » 23 Dec 2016 20:20

ashishvikas wrote:EXCLUSIVE: DRDO's cruise missile project Nirbhay on verge of closure
By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 23rd December 2016 01:52 AM |

. . . . . While the Research Centre Imarat (RCI) blamed ADE-developed software, ADE was pointing towards the defective hardware supplied by RCI. “However, it could not be ascertained which is defective, whether the software or hardware, but Nirbhay missile failed in its fourth attempt,” an insider said. . . . . There are always differences between ADE and RCI regarding its functional efficacy, the source claimed.


This is a clear indication of poor project management.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 23 Dec 2016 20:32

I think there are enough skeletons tumbling from the cupboard and enough mud being flung at the program to suggest that all is far from well. The stony silence from anyone inside the program is contrasted by the details revealed by Hemant Rout who has consistently proved to have some inside sources.

I would like to hear about a full review of the program and even a closure would not disappoint me. We need to move ahead and not have internal bickering and a blame game. Even after early failures of Agni and other occasional AAD failures and we did not see such public washing of linen. Naag has had a turbulent course - and yet it did not throw up internal bickering and dissent. The Trishul was quietly taken out from IGMDP. No allegations and infighting.

This is different..a 4th flight and 3 consecutive failures - and this failure being anticipated in addition to reports of interdepartmental bickering.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby uddu » 23 Dec 2016 20:46

Defence experts have raised questions on the requirement of such a subsonic missile, which can cruise at a speed of 0.8 Mach, when supersonic cruise missile BrahMos, developed jointly with Russia, is already inducted in the armed forces.


Rout again shows his ignorance. He is good in getting details because of his source who is leaking information, but poor in knowledge. And completely ignorant about the facts regarding speed, range, size and cost.
For his level of argument, one can say why did U.S develop Tomahawk when they had the harpoons :D


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests