Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 May 2017 06:43

wrt to missile tests. Monsoons hit Andamans several days ago. Many places in India are receiving heavy pre-monsoon showers. Expect missile tests to slow down

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 May 2017 07:07

Early Agni II tests were actuator quality issues. So the writer is pointing out differences.
What is being is this should be classified and some SFC with DRDO should speak and not let 'informed ' speculation drive the narrative.

Who write that article?
I saw no name.

Would assume must be a insider or a SFC type recently retired person since so many authoratative details have been put out in the article which a normal journo wont surely have access to

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 23 May 2017 07:20

1) The only report that gave details about the recent A-II test`failure" was by Rajat Pandit at ToI. Hence the quotes. Then a few other media outlets took off mentioning that the test ``did not attain desired results". Strangely, the test was reported as successful by New Indian Express (whose correspondent is Hemant Rout) and Saurav Jha's publication. It is therefore, not clear whether the test failed in the first place.

2) Of the Agni series, A-II is the only one that has failed after the first test. It therefore, has a record of being not so reliable. Even if it did fail this May, the issue may not be relevant to the newer A-IV/V type missiles. A-IV/V do not use fins for control and A-V reportedly uses no hydraulics for any actuation (all actuators are electromechanical) going by Ajai Shukla's article. This would make these systems much more reliable than the A-II.

3) AFAIK, the first developmental A-III test was on July 2006, bang in the middle of the monsoon. Probably there may have been a lull in the monsoon. If the govt decides, at least user trials of A-IV/V could still take place then. The point I was making is that testing must speed up. NoKo had its first canisterized test in Feb and went for a second in 3 months. That is the rate at which critical systems such as the A-iv/V shoud be tested to enhance deterrent credibility against adversaries.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 May 2017 07:42

sum wrote:@2:10 onwards,are the wierd looking bogies IRBM/ICBM TEL coaches?

Can someone have this video removed from Youtube? Telescopic bogies are indeed missile carriers. Locomotives carry Depot markings that make area of operations identifiable.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 23 May 2017 08:27

@tsarkar: that video has probably done its damage. Hopefully IA/SFC finds a way of minimizing it. Problem is that once hostiles know what to look for, these things are difficult to fully conceal. Road mobility may eventually be a better option.

Looks like he has made it private. He should be told to remove it from youtube alltogether.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 May 2017 10:45

ramana wrote:Who write that article?
I saw no name.

sum wrote:Would assume must be a insider or a SFC type recently retired person since so many authoratative details have been put out in the article which a normal journo wont surely have access to

If one delves deeper the name of the author becomes readily apparent. Indeed a name well know to old timers here on BRF

.

Author is certainly not either “a insider or a SFC type recently retired person”.

Reading the same article at the IDSA website from which IDR reproduced it will make all plain

:

The Agni-II Trial Failure: Evaluation rather than Flagellation is needed

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 23 May 2017 11:41

Edit- sanjay Bhadri Maharaj ?

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 May 2017 13:35

Simple things like moving such bogies during nighttime will avoid such blunders.
This message has to reach them

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2017 20:48

SBM wrote the article!!!

Ok will ask him about the timing of the aborted test flight.

Also can some one help me by posting any news reports circa 4 may 2017 on the subject of AII test?

Thanks, ramana

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 May 2017 22:39

tsarkar wrote:
sum wrote:@2:10 onwards,are the wierd looking bogies IRBM/ICBM TEL coaches?
Can someone have this video removed from Youtube? Telescopic bogies are indeed missile carriers. Locomotives carry Depot markings that make area of operations identifiable.

They look like livestock carriers to me. The real missile carriers will look more like containers, or oil carriers.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 23 May 2017 22:44

Thats what I also thought first. That these look like carriers to carry cattle etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2017 03:48

Here is link to the first report of the 4 May Agni II test anomaly.

viewtopic.php?p=2152030#p2152030

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 24 May 2017 17:30

With three failures and without clearance from the technical committee formed to recommend rectification measures, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is all set to conduct a fresh experimental trial of homegrown subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay on May 31.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... ign=buffer

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 May 2017 17:49

they need to resemble the real wagons from the top and from an angle because satellites look to the sides also.

here the russian example which we surely emulated

kurup · Post by **kurup** » 24 May 2017 19:09

arun wrote: Thanks Kurup With that dogleg, Nirbhay it is.

Warning has been removed .......... looks like Nirbhay test is postponed ..again .

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 May 2017 19:11

^^ I was wondering why couldn't they simply make them look like the normal freight wagons..?? The outward appearance can be easily maintained by using stick-on panels if need be.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 24 May 2017 19:15

Railways might have advised not to have this roof opening upwards due to OHE and they have settled for telescopic wagons, if the design of the wagon was from a decade back there is no canister either! and any EMP protection is built into the canister..maybe

as a sidenote, ro-ro of mil trucks is happening under OHE...

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 May 2017 21:30

DRDO's Precision Guided 450kg HSLD bomb with Nose Extension Unit (NEXU) and Smart Tail Unit (STU)

Waiting for a photo of it on a Su-30MKI.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 24 May 2017 21:56

Any updates on Garuthmaa, was being tested last year.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2017 23:14

srai,
This is better than JDAM which is GPS guided only. Newer versions have Laser seeker also
HSLD has dual seeker Laser (NEXU) and GPS with INS (STU) and the INS is initialized from the aircraft navigation unit.

Wonder what is the CEP with Laser turned off.

Hats off to the requirements and developers they have really thought through the problem.

Also note the Fuze is AVU-ETM. Long back ARDE had developed nose and tail fuzes for the HSLD series and old pages of OFB used to describe the product. Looks like that is no longer made.

Too bad for that kills innovation.

It could be this AVU-ETM is dual mounted nose or tail based on mission.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2017 23:38

Karthik S wrote:
With three failures and without clearance from the technical committee formed to recommend rectification measures, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is all set to conduct a fresh experimental trial of homegrown subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay on May 31.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... ign=buffer

Very interesting report. My comments and highlights

BHUBANESWAR: With three failures and without clearance from the technical committee formed to recommend rectification measures, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is all set to conduct a fresh experimental trial of homegrown subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay on May 31.
However, the move to put the missile into trial with faults in the system has left a section of scientists worried. While navigational and hardware problems still persist in the weapon system, glitches in Nirbhay flight control computer are yet to be rectified.

{So DRDO has taken a command decision to fly the test missile despite the 'glitches' in FCC. What this means is they need to qualify the flight vehicle in the basic trajectory. The 'glitches' could be in the complicated maneuvers it undertakes. So its an informed decision by DRDO.}

So far, of the four tests of Nirbhay missile, three have met with failure. Though the missile covered a distance of nearly 1,000 km during its second trial on October 17, 2014 and was claimed as successful by the DRDO, it could not maintain low height as intended.

{This could be one of the glitches. The fins or vanes did not tilt and maintain the low height. Could be a mechanical issue.}

Sources said an independent technical committee was formed after the failed fourth trial in December last year to identify faults in the missile sub-systems and suggest remedial measures.

''Even as the committee refused to give a go-ahead for the test, the top brass of DRDO is adamant on going for fresh trial. They are expecting a miracle to happen but with defects in the system, failure is a foregone conclusion,'' said a defence scientist on condition of anonymity.

{ITC did not give the recommendation as they don't want to hold the buck. So they refuse to make a decision till they are satisfied. The DRDO top brass(?) wants the flight vehicle proven while the 'glitches' are worked out. Cassandras are a plenty. But nothing ventured nothing gained.}

During Aero India 2017 in February, Director General of DRDO S Christopher had said the suggestions of the technical committee have been incorporated and the missile is ready for trial.

Sources said Nirbhay cruise missile, which was powered by a turbofan engine earlier, will be tested using a turbojet engine this time.

{Looks like they had a limited number of turbofan engines for the development trials and ran out due to the test anomalies. So using the turbojet to qualify the basic flight vehicle is a prudent step. The early flights should have been using the turbojet in hindsight. Besides if this one fails then they need to start allover again. US had many cruise missile projects before the Tomahawk.}

The first test flight conducted on March 12, 2013, was a failure as the missile fell down only after 20 minutes of flight.
On October 16, 2015, the missile during its third test nose-dived into the sea after covering only 129 km in 11 minutes.
Nirbhay's fourth trial on December 21, 2016 was aborted midway as the missile changed its course due to late deployment of wings.

Before third and fourth trials, 'The Express' had raised doubts on the outcome of the tests as the missile had faults in the flight control and navigation software.

{'The Express' printed the doubts raised by the scientists. Its not like they had independent review/assessment of the Nirbhay test flight plan!!! Besides IIRC, the doubts were about the FCC software and not the fin opening mechanism, So worry noted but not relevant.}

Having a strike range of nearly 1,000 km, the two-stage missile is six metres long. With a diameter of 0.52 metres and wing span of 2.7 metres, Nirbhay weighs around 1,500 kg and can carry warhead of 200 kg.

Designed by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and launched in 2004, the projected date of completion of Nirbhay was December 31 last. It was, however, extended till June, 2018 after a review.

Christopher chose to ignore the queried about the faults in the missile system.

{Can expect that as he has many things on mind and the 'faults' are not germane to this test. In Flight Test Investigations there are causes and root cause. Root cause is that cause if corrected would fix the problem. The last flight had fin opening delay due to a mechanical component. fixing that would enable the flight test to get to next stage which is to proof the FCC with the 'glitches' removed. Further there is flight test window during which it has to be tested. Missing that window will delay the program with out any new discovery.
BTW 1) what turbojet engine is being used?
2) How is the Manik engine coming along?
3)Also any insight into the 24 types of payload that the 200 kg warhead weight can provide?}

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2017 00:17

In ohe sections how will even telescoping roof help?
Missile in launch position will hit the charged wires.
And more of our network is getting electrified

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 May 2017 01:23

thats just a safety measure in peacetime, when its time to launch they would clear the whole ohe section or use turnouts maybe

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 May 2017 01:25

the HSLD nose section, can they add small thrusters to increase the cross range performance? useful if one has to perform a 90 degree turn after crossing a ridge in the mountains

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2017 02:16

Vasu, Did you see the off bore sight values? +/-30 degrees.
That's a lot. But range drops as the nose fins area is only so much.
To hit a target 3km to the side (cross range) after release from 8 km height is superb.

Should call this version Sidewinder!!!

Adding thrusters etc., complicates the design and might make it less reliable (more components).

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 May 2017 02:52

Ramanagaru, definitely a good PGM, one could see the cross range values in terms of cross wind correction too, the chart kind of says that the bomb drops below 5-6km altitude past the 10km downward range, the average Himalayan mountains are at 5-6k altitude, that causes the release point to be about 10-15km from the ridge, when the valley right next to it is being targeted.

Thrusters wouldn't be of much help in crossing a ridge from a further distance, on one side it seems a corner case, at the sametime it gives blindspots for the enemy to hide behind the mountains. Launch aircraft alignment alongside a target valley is not an option always.

Maybe once we cross over Nirbhay testing, they will add powered cruise phase to the PGMs as well

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2017 05:30

Have they tested the HSLD with the NEXU/STU? Shouldn't need NOTAM etc.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2017 06:17

ramana wrote:srai,
This is better than JDAM which is GPS guided only. Newer versions have Laser seeker also
HSLD has dual seeker Laser (NEXU) and GPS with INS (STU) and the INS is initialized from the aircraft navigation unit.

Wonder what is the CEP with Laser turned off.

Hats off to the requirements and developers they have really thought through the problem.

...

From the poster:

< 30m w/ INS-GPS only
< 3m w/ Semi-Active Laser (SAL) seeker in terminal phase

IMO, this PGM shows that DRDO/India is moving past copying other designs. It combines both JDAM and LGB features on its own bomb. They tried to copy LGB with Sudarshan but it turned out to be too complicated of a design w/ folding tail fins etc. Maybe the range performance wasn't that good as well. Instead, they have taken the same Ballistic Tail Unit (BTU) of a 450kg HSLD (homegrown design too) and made it into a Smart Tail Unit (STU) to retain similar characteristics. This implies that the regular HSLD would also have pretty long ranges (but not as accurate further away). The front attachment (NEXU) for terminal phase too shares similar shaping as non-smart fuse attachment.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2017 06:21

DRDL per reports has 18 ongoing missile programs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2017 06:32

Fact Christopher sir has been given extension bodes well. That and DRDO's go-silent on tests reports etc apart from annual reports, indicates the GOI wants him to give the organization the continuity to deliver on some critical programs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2017 07:05

srai, Thanks. I didn't see the right hand corner of the poster.
I think the SAL 3m accuracy is world class.
I think the 30m for GPS-INS is most likely for INS only operation in case GPS is not available.
I expect half of that for the combined GPS-INS option as a goal.

Actual demonstrated will be much better.

Lets see.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2017 09:08

Imo there is a deep rooted and well funded conspiracy going on to delay and if possible fail the nirbhay

What is the strategic impact of nirbhay foc? It permits us to produce 3000 at the cost of 1000 brahmos, keep brahmos meat in reserve and indulge in punitive retaliation on tsp without using ballistic missiles.

Who feels that is a no no? Saudis usa and china

What can they do?
Strikes via msm
Sabotage by any means
Lean on russia to delay or deny the saturn engines..remember they were supposed to provide 200 engines and we ran out of stock after 4?

Even if the turbojet engine reduces range to 500km from 1000 of the turbofan it is as urgent a project as A5.

So might have top level blessings to expedite whatevee be the engineering risk

This is one project we must consider as A5 and avoid any foreign critical part no matter now benign looking. Woukd be foolish to use gpa or glonass at all. Use irnss and dual ins.

This and 155/52 conspiracy fall in same category. If anyone can be caught need to face the fullest wrath of the law.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2017 09:23

ramana wrote:
Karthik S wrote:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... ign=buffer
...

...

Having a strike range of nearly 1,000 km, the two-stage missile is six metres long. With a diameter of 0.52 metres and wing span of 2.7 metres, Nirbhay weighs around 1,500 kg and can carry warhead of 200 kg.

...

At that 1500kg weight, 3 Nirbhays could be carried by a Su-30MKI.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2017 09:31

srai wrote:DRDO's Precision Guided 450kg HSLD bomb with Nose Extension Unit (NEXU) and Smart Tail Unit (STU)

...

Next logical step would be Precision Guided 250kg HSLD.

Wondering if DRDO's ARDE is designing 125kg HSLD (for swarm-attack) and a 900kg HSLD (for bunker-busting)?

IAF's requirement is stated for 500kg and 125kg long-range glide bombs. 1000/year are being planned.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 May 2017 11:00

What is the status on HELINA? There were supposed to be tests in August 2016 with new Sofradir FPA?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 May 2017 13:33

rohitvats wrote:What is the status on HELINA? There were supposed to be tests in August 2016 with new Sofradir FPA?

I am more concerned about the future of LCH. That is the launch platform for it

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2017 14:25

IA is going around asking for 19 apaches to start with, and psst more later now that IAF has been "placated" with the initial lot of apaches.

if we had 250 LCH already I could understand the "need" for 30 apaches gold plated and khan stamped for some mythical "heavy strike" role with 16 hellfires (shades of the carpet bomber here) or the fabled "SEAD mission" to take out the sakeswar and korangi creek radars or "airborne C3I" whatever that means. ....

right now all of our precious money needs to get into LCH FOC and we need to procure 100s of these both for IA and IAF and cut out the diabetic sugary cake known as apache which I am sure will come with a far better glowing brochure and natasha bonus..and just like diebetes it will seep into our cellular and metabolic pathways and slowly weaken and kill the host.

apaches and chinooks should never been let inside the door. categorical statements need to be made at PMO level that no more of these requests will be entertained.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 May 2017 15:16

Having a strike range of nearly 1,000 km, the two-stage missile is six metres long. With a diameter of 0.52 metres and wing span of 2.7 metres, Nirbhay weighs around 1,500 kg and can carry warhead of 200 kg.

Just 200 kg Warhead for Nirhhay or is it 400 ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2017 15:56

some people say nirbhay components would need some downsizing, and engine become more next-gen to keep the same fuel , speed, range yet improve payload. it is not as cutting edge as the latest tomahawks.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2017 16:07

so what saar...we have a need for the thing as it is, even if it is not as tfta as latest tomahawk wagehra.