Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jul 2017 17:49

They mentioned later it was not a Brahmos-ER test but some other video it was fake so they removed it

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 24 Jul 2017 19:17

Austin wrote:They mentioned later it was not a Brahmos-ER test but some other video it was fake so they removed it

US BDM test and tfta tracking system .

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jul 2017 03:56

IAI keen to collaborate with more Indian firms
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 786704.ece

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jul 2017 04:12

Israel to partner DRDO for developing missile defence system for India
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 689811.cms

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Jul 2017 13:26

Delhi Defence Review‏ @delhidefence

10:50 AM - 27 Jul 2017 - IMAGE: @DRDO_India's Precision Guided High-Speed Low Drag 500 kg bomb during recent trials. Developed by ARDE, Pune.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Jul 2017 16:17

@kakarat2001
DRDO has tested Precision Guided High Speed Low Drag (PGHSLD) 22-30 May 2017 at Pokharan. During release trials, weapon was released from an altitude of 5 km at 900 km/h (TAS) to verify separation performance and to estimate stability. The separation event recorded with high-speed camera, showed safe weapon separation and no rolling, pitching or yawing dynamics in the vicinity of the aircraft.

From DRDO Newsletter

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 27 Jul 2017 16:26

saar which aircraft is this ? 32 wing Jodhpur so Mig27

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Jul 2017 16:27

suryag wrote:saar which aircraft is this ?

Su-30MKI

There is also a Su-30MKI squadron (31 sqn) at Jodhpur

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Jul 2017 16:57

suryag wrote:saar which aircraft is this ? 32 wing Jodhpur so Mig27

There are two Su-30MKI operated by ASTE used to test BrahMos, Astra & now PGMs.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 27 Jul 2017 18:18

Thanks Sir, the article above listed 32 wing Jodhpur which i looked up and found was housing a 27 squadron hence the incorrect conclusion. I forgot the fact that all new evaluations/experiments are done by ASTE BLR and test flown to the ranges

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Jul 2017 18:35

32 Wing manages the Chandan Test Range near Pokhran

sum · Post by **sum** » 27 Jul 2017 18:48

Any news on Nirbhay?

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 27 Jul 2017 19:25

^^ @suryag the plane has canards.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 27 Jul 2017 22:38

Also the canopy slope is quite unique.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Jul 2017 22:52

and IRST

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jul 2017 20:44

3,600 Crores Later, Made-In-India Akash Missile Fails Tests, Says Auditor

NEW DELHI:
HIGHLIGHTS
As many as a third of Akash missiles have failed basic tests: CAG
Missiles fell short of target, had lower than required velocity: Report
The Air Force has refused to comment on the report

As many as a third of the home-made Akash surface-to-air missiles have failed basic tests, says the country's national auditor, claiming the deficiencies of the missiles "posed an operational risk during hostilities."

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is a big setback for the Make-In-India initiative which seeks to reduce India's dependence on imported arms. The report, given to parliament, says, "the missiles fell short of the target, had lower than the required velocity, and there was malfunctioning of critical units."

The Air Force has refused to comment on the report.

The Akash was produced by the state-run Bharat Electronics. The auditor says that though 3,600 crores have been paid to the manufacturer, none of the missile systems are installed at the six designated sites even though it has been seven years since the contract was signed.

The Akash and its newer variant, the Akash Mk-2, are a medium-range surface-to-air missile system designed to intercept enemy aircraft and missiles at a distance of 18-30 km. Tested extensively by the Indian Air Force, the Akash, which was first handed over in December 2008, was seen as a breakthrough indigenous system and in 2010, an additional six squadrons were ordered.

These additional squadrons, composed of missile launchers, radars, associated vehicles and hundreds of Akash missiles, were meant to be deployed at six air force bases in the East for which the government approved related infrastructure including storage facilities, workshops and ramp structures. These were supposed to be constructed by Bharat Electronics on a turnkey basis at a cost of approximately 100 crores. However, this infrastructure "could not be completed till October 2016 at any of the sites." The auditor also says though work was nearly complete at two bases, the "IAF had not taken over these buildings because of defects in the construction, which rendered them unsuitable for strategic missile system storage. In other stations, the progress was below 45 per cent as of October 2016".

While the missiles were indeed delivered to air forces bases between April 2014 and June 2016 after a delay of between 6 and 18 months, the missiles were found to be deficient in quality. According to the auditor, "Out of 80 missiles received upto November 2014, 20 missiles were test fired during April-November 2014. 6 of these missiles, ie, 30 per cent, failed the test."

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Jul 2017 20:52

NDTV running propaganda using outdated data coming from CAG. The induction of the missiles happened only in Jul 2015.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-su ... ce-2103457
They are quoting reports of 2014 of trials.
Do anyone have CAG report of the trials? Because NDTV cannot be trusted and whatever numbers they quote need to be checked. They will write any rubbish.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jul 2017 21:05

Barak lobby back at work.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jul 2017 21:14

suryag wrote:saar which aircraft is this ? 32 wing Jodhpur so Mig27

Sukhboy 30

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 28 Jul 2017 22:23

If 30% failed, that means 70% worked!! Cool result for a cheap missile. What percentage of R77 and Sea Eagle missiles are known to work? Any body know?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 28 Jul 2017 22:28

Akash missile is around 1/10th the cost Barak-8 missile.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 28 Jul 2017 22:38

Sea Eagle missiles did not work, it was a dud. When GoI approached the company in UK, they found out the company had closed shop. Actually BaE took it over and wanted nothing to do with what the old company did. They i.e DRDO, GoI were given huge disk drives and told to go figure it out themselves how to fix the guidance system. When DRDO tried reading the disk drives they found out it needed a special device to read the drives as they were of a size that was not standard. In the end the matter was quietly put under the rug.
I heard it from the horses's mouth over coffee and murukkus and a source who is very much in the news for multiple reasons, and who was tasked to fix Sea Eagle. This Sea Eagle stuff keeps coming again and again and I always laugh when I read comments on the forum about it.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 29 Jul 2017 00:05

^^^ Same with Seacat missiles...or even worse. When, after firing, when the missile was not able to find/track its target, I believe it had a tendency to home on to the mothership!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Jul 2017 01:11

^^ Army chaps who evaluated the land based Tigercat version told IN they were duds but Brits insisted bundling it along with Leander package. IN replaced it in later ships and thereafter initial ships with AK-230. Even the Brit radar was replaced with Signaal one second ship onwards.

Sea Eagle was rectified after a lot of effort by IN. There was a successful hit during test in 90s. Brit Type 22 & 23 used imported Exocet and Harpoon missiles.

Even Klub missiles had failures that were traced to incorrect coordinates fed to missile INS by submarine fire control.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2017 04:39

Fascinating...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jul 2017 04:46

tsarkar wrote:Even Klub missiles had failures that were traced to incorrect coordinates fed to missile INS by submarine fire control.

Saar, can you please elaborate on why the Klub missile was a failure, if the incorrect coordinates were fed into it. I read, a while back, that the IN had issues with the Klub missile.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 Jul 2017 09:28

70% working rate for initial batches is not bad. After receiving feedback the situation would further improve.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jul 2017 10:05

More Details in ET report

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 818189.cms

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2017 10:17

Rakesh wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Even Klub missiles had failures that were traced to incorrect coordinates fed to missile INS by submarine fire control.
Saar, can you please elaborate on why the Klub missile was a failure, if the incorrect coordinates were fed into it. I read, a while back, that the IN had issues with the Klub missile.

in early days there were reports of klub missiles also falling short into the water and IN curbing any further purchases...if you see the initial 3 talwar class were the last ones with klub, after that everyone carts brahmos.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jul 2017 10:44

Interesting tweet discussion between Vishnu Som and Gen SK Sinha ....The issue with Akash is with its prod IAF has endorsed the missile

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/8 ... 5725178880

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 29 Jul 2017 11:46

I remember reading some news about how a lot of Russian A2A missiles had severe problems which led to IAF looking for other options.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ia ... 47474.html

Nearly half of Indian Air Force’s beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles that were tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives, a report claimed on Thursday.

As per the report by an leading English daily, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its yet to be released report has raised serious questions on the usability of the R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, each costing Rs 2 crore, which are fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons.

India has been procuring these missiles from Russia since 1996 and has even ordered for more than 2,000 missiles after the Kargil conflict out of which 1,000 have already been delivered.

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/n ... rt/490055/

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG report

an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives.

The R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons, were bought from Russia starting 1996. More than 2,000 missiles were ordered after the Kargil conflict and 1,000 have been delivered.

The CAG report, which will be released soon, is based on evaluations of the missile — its range is close to 90 km — during ground tests, inspections and test firing by the IAF. The missiles were bought at a "cost of Rs 2 crore each" but their failure during tests, says the CAG report, has affected the "operational preparedness" of the IAF.

"All figures in the report are based on air force records. Everything is verified by the IAF," an official said.

The problem with the missiles was referred to Russia and several teams subsequently visited India to rectify faults. IAF officers familiar with the missiles confirmed that this has been a problem area for long. "It is a known fact that the missiles do not work as we would like them to. Periodic tests that are carried out when they are in storage show their dismal state. We also have problems with spare parts," said a retired officer who was closely associated with the matter.

Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy said: "When the missiles were bought, they were top of the line, world class systems that no other country had. As we did not have our own testing facilities, they had to be tested in Russia. The question to be asked is whether the government approved testing facilities for the missiles in India."

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Jul 2017 12:16

Austin wrote:Interesting tweet discussion between Vishnu Som and Gen SK Sinha ....The issue with Akash is with its prod IAF has endorsed the missile

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/8 ... 5725178880

Wow Gen is proud of having shut down the project in 2007 and wonders how it even revived and how it was thrust on IA

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Jul 2017 12:59

Which seeker the R 77 uses. Is it Agat? And which seeker the astra is equipped with.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2017 14:44

i believe its the same seeker or slightly derived one. even the cheen pl12 uses agat seeker though probably they might have 'cloned' it now. its considered a challenge because the seeker diameter is small yet needs great resolution and ECCM out to some 15-20km of terminal homing and a reliable and compact battery. ECCM and resolution against LO targets is also a must. so Sw and sensor plays its role apart from missile airframe agility, energy profile (dual pulse or ramjet is a must for new kit) and light weight.

the mighty salvo of 56 or so Thawks launched into syria -- it seems some 6-12 malfunctioned and dropped here and there it is alleged. russis must have gleefully picked up to analyze.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 29 Jul 2017 14:49

Without numbers for similar systems, the 30% or 50% test failures etc have no meaning/relevance.

FMEA type folks doing analysis on one hand are required, and on the other, we need senior folks who are not into decision making with pride instead of applying risk management principles or understanding of real world issues. We are a long way from a mature Mic only because ownership and accountability belongs to someone else in every scenario.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2017 14:52

feynman types ie... maybe kalam sir was one who could negotiate the swamp via secret paths and get things done

members of the rogers commission which looked into challenger explosion - note there was none from the shuttle program or thiokol

Members of the Rogers Commission arrive at Kennedy Space Center.
William P. Rogers, chairman and former United States Secretary of State (under Richard Nixon) and United States Attorney General (under Dwight Eisenhower)
Neil A. Armstrong (Vice Chairman), retired astronaut and first human to walk on the Moon (Apollo 11)
David Campion Acheson, diplomat and son of former Secretary of State Dean Acheson
Eugene E. Covert, aeronautics expert and former Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force
Richard P. Feynman, theoretical physicist and winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
Robert B. Hotz, Editor, Aviation Week And Space Technology
Donald J. Kutyna, Air Force general with experience in ICBMs
Sally K. Ride, astronaut and first American woman in space, flew on Challenger as part of missions STS-7 and STS-41-G
Robert W. Rummel, Trans World Airlines executive and aviation consultant to NASA
Joseph F. Sutter, engineer for Boeing and part of team that developed Boeing 747 aircraft
Arthur B. C. Walker, Jr, solar physicist and Stanford University professor
Albert D. Wheelon, physicist and developer of Central Intelligence Agency's aerial surveillance program
Charles E. Yeager, retired Air Force general and the first person to break the sound barrier in level flight
Alton G. Keel, Jr., executive director of the commission

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2017 14:58

30% error rate is imo not acceptable from a war fighting pov.
5% or even 10% may be common worldwide for similar gear.
being single use items, AAMs lie in storage for years until used in anger or tested in exercises before expiry.....a lot of math and data must be there to predict service lives by the OEM

in many ways our data banks and OEMs are infants vs global giants who have tackled similar problems decades ago many times and know the potholes well....yet even they slip as the persistent problems with JASSM ER showed.The missile's development began in 1995, but a number of problems during testing delayed its introduction into service until 2009.

once proven they keep reusing the proven propulsion, seeker, computer and warhead in mix and match mode to extent possible to reduce risk. the tomahawk design is now around 40 years old.

Wiki
in 1999, powered flight tests of the missile began. These were successful, and production of the JASSM began in December 2001. The weapon began operational testing and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed tests and the project was delayed for three months before completing development in April 2003. Two more launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and engine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile was approved by the Pentagon.[5] A decision on whether to continue with the program was deferred until Spring 2008.[6] Lockheed agreed to fix the missiles at its own cost and has tightened up its manufacturing processes.[7]

On 27 August 2009, David Van Buren, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said that there would be a production gap for the JASSM while further tests were held.[8] Further tests in 2009 were more successful however, with 15 out of 16 rounds hitting the intended target, well above the 75% benchmark set for the test. As such JASSM is now cleared for service entry.[9] The United States Air Force plans to acquire up to 4,900 AGM-158 missiles.[10] Meanwhile, the United States Navy had originally planned to acquire 453[11] AGM-158 missiles but pulled out of the program in favor of employing the proven SLAM-ER

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2017 15:39

Singha wrote:
the mighty salvo of 56 or so Thawks launched into syria -- it seems some 6-12 malfunctioned and dropped here and there it is alleged. russis must have gleefully picked up to analyze.

Are we at 6-12 now? I thought it would be half or more. Have pictures of parts litered around the country side emerged yet?

I think the "alleged" bit has come a full circle from claiming that they took a dip in the water, to they were shot down by Syrian air defenses, to them just falling over land and being quietly picked up by the Russians. I think at some point there was someone here that was even suggesting that the Chinese may have picked up a few

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2017 16:19

Singha wrote:in many ways our data banks and OEMs are infants vs global giants who have tackled similar problems decades ago many times and know the potholes well....yet even they slip as the persistent problems with JASSM ER showed.The missile's development began in 1995, but a number of problems during testing delayed its introduction into service until 2009.

That's JASSM not JASSM-ER. Although the same family they are not the same missile and even have different engines. Anyhow your point is valid..JASSM was not an easy weapon to develop but it was felt that the Boeing and Raytheon duopoly on medium-long range cruise missiles had to be broken (Most expected McD to win JASSM in the 90s). It also had what Lockheed publicly claimed at the time to be one of the smallest RCS configuration vehicles the Skunk Works had designed so it wasn't and isn't simply a scaled down TLAM.

The intervention first involved recognizing the problem, doing an RCA and approving a Reliability Growth Plan and then making future orders contingent on the success of the RGP. There were a few contentious moments in there where the PO ruled that JASSM-ER testing (The weapon achieved >90% reliability in its IT but this couldn't be used towards the RGP) would not go towards the RGP of the baseline JASSM but regardless the joint development team had to demonstrate improvements in reliability in order to keep the program alive which they did as around the time the weapon was declared operational the flight demonstrated reliability had climbed up to 85% or better.

Fast forward to the JASSM-ER which went through the DT/OT phase in the early part of this decade, they achieved better than 95% reliability over more than 25 development and operational test shots (more than 20 of those being in Operational Test scenarios) over the course its development and ultimate IOT&E milestone achievement.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Jul 2017 21:55

I think that atleast 3000 Akash missiles have been ordered by IA and IAF. This test seems to be of the very first batch.