Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2011 01:06

Pranav wrote:Not so clear ... flat trajectory would use wings and generate lift from the air. A ballistic trajectory would need a lot of energy to reach that greater height.

I believe Shourya uses flex nozzles + gas control (similar to the Brahmos tipping mechanism) for imparting a depressed trajectory that consumes more energy than a pure ballistic flight path. Shourya doesnt have any lift generating surfaces.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Oct 2011 04:01

tsarkar wrote:
Philip wrote:Precisely why I've been advocating the need for a new class of heavy cruisers of around 12,000t+,
We have 6000 tonne nuclear submarines that save 6000 tonnes of steel and are inherently stealthy because of their operating environment

Kanson wrote:We believe in duality,don't we? Much before we came to know about the duality of Light, we practised Advaita. We practised duality in Brahmos by converting an AShCM into LACM. We converted ABM AAD into Prahaar, Prithvi to PAD, Prithvi to Dhanush and Dhanush to ....
The ability to reuse is the best feature of our program. Even the US is now thinking of equipping newer Virginia with dual role BM/CM tubes, but we thought of it earlier.

Velocity is also a function of the trajectory chosen. Meaningless discussing average speed. A pure ballistic trajectory is more energy efficient than a shaped trajectory. Something lobbed at 45 deg with baseline energy will reach faster than something lobbed at 22.5 deg, that will consume more energy it it has to cover the same distance.

If 10 boys in class are 5 ft tall and 10 boys 6 ft tall, we cannot average height to 5.5 ft because none of the boys are 5.5 ft tall.

+1. We are in danger on BRF of missing the obvious: You don't need large surface ships to attack any targets. The SSGNs or even SSKs with LACMs or ASMs are far more potent. The BM/CM felxibility is ingenious and derives from the canisterization tech.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 23 Oct 2011 05:12

vic wrote:Just a small note, SAMs and AAMs may have max speed of Mach 3 to 6 but normal average speed is around Mach 1.5. While the BMs have average speed of Mach 5 to 10-20. Which means normally it is very diffcult for SAM to intercept a crossing BM

Thanks Vic

assuming at 5 secs before a SAM or AAM closes in on a fighter, how big is the kill envelope, like radius? so any move by the fighter to escape is futile

lets keep ECM and CMDS stuff out of the picture

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Oct 2011 05:55

The lethality is decided by the warhead. Generally, its around ~30 mtrs radius around the warhead of the missile. What you are asking is a bit more than that, basically the NEZ wherein even aircraft maneuvering becomes irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile

The No-Escape Zone is the zone within which there is a high (defined) kill probability against a target even if it has been alerted. This zone is defined as a conical shape with the tip at the missile launch. The cone's length and width are determined by the missile and seeker performance. A missile's speed, range and seeker sensitivity will mostly determine the length of this imaginary cone, while its agility (turn rate) and seeker complexity (speed of detection and ability to detect off axis targets) will determine the width of the cone.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 23 Oct 2011 12:27

HELINA tested on ALH Rudra

India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Program got another boost last week when the HELINA Anti- Tank missile was successful tested on the ALH Rudra. It was an separation test which was 100% success. This was the first test in which an Indian missile was tested form an Indian platform. A full test will follow soon.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 23 Oct 2011 12:53

Pratik_S wrote:HELINA tested on ALH Rudra
.

That title is so appropriate.

Singha must be happy.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Oct 2011 13:32

Pratik_S wrote:HELINA tested on ALH Rudra

India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Program got another boost last week when the HELINA Anti- Tank missile was successful tested on the ALH Rudra. It was an separation test which was 100% success. This was the first test in which an Indian missile was tested form an Indian platform. A full test will follow soon.

This milestone is more important than anything else! I hope this gets inducted.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 23 Oct 2011 13:36

yes given astra hasnt been fired yet from a flying platform

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Oct 2011 15:44

^^^

Eagerly waiting for the full test, with the ignition of the motor to the target lock and the missile strike on the target.

PS:- I am violently opposed to any interim purchase of AL ATGM by the IA/IAF as the HELINA is a home grown programme.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2011 18:14

ramana wrote:kanson when the next flgith occurs might be good idea to list the firsts on the flight.

Yeah sure, it would be interesting to see how the program is progressing.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2011 18:22

Flight envelope that Astra has to undergo during release widely varies when compared to HELINA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2011 18:30

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/art ... t_2011.pdf

DRDO scientists however said that there would be an attempt to reduce the weight of the missile as the tests progress. Reduced weight of the propellant rocket would compensate for higher explosive package

.

The missile can take 400 - 500 kg as payload. I guess attempt will be made to match to those dropped from aircraft.

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 23 Oct 2011 22:51

Field evaluation trials of anti-tank missile soon

The field evaluation trials (FET) of MBDA Missile System's Pars 3 LR fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), shortlisted alongside Rafael Advanced Defence System's Spike-ER for the Indian Army's weaponised Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) ‘Rudra,' is slated to get under way soon.

“We are waiting for the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] to give us the schedule for trials. Hopefully, the dates will be finalised soon,” MBDA's Peter Meuthen told a group of Indian journalists at the company's facility at Fusaro, north of Naples, Italy.

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

Pars 3 LR, according to Mr. Meuthen, is a high precision weapon system with a broad target spectrum. “It is highly effective against mobile and stationary targets equipped with latest armour protection; field fortresses; and bunkers besides other high-value targets,” he said.

Pars 3 LR boasts a maximum operational range of seven kilometres and is said to possess high jamming resistance. In salvo mode, it can fire up to four missiles in 10 seconds. The missile, in service with the German Army on its UH-Tiger helicopters, was live-fired at Vidsel in Sweden in April this year. “The successful firings matched all Indian operational requirements, but an Indian delegation could not witness it due to administrative reasons,” Mr. Meuthen said.

A Bangalore-based Indian company has been co-opted by MBDA to design and develop a twin launcher, a derivative of the quad launcher fitted on German Tiger helicopter, for the launch of the missile from ALH Rudra. “The twin-launcher has been developed by the Indian company and its production will be done there [in the event of the selection of Pars 3 LR in the competition].”

Simultaneously, MBDA has come out with an eight-missile configuration for the under-development indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH). Pars 3 LR is also in contention to weaponise the 22 attack helicopters being acquired by the Indian Air Force to replace its ageing fleet of Mi-25. MBDA has proposed Pars 3 LR for the Russian MIL Mi-28 helicopter which competes in the IAF evaluation with the ‘Hellfire' anti-armour missile-equipped Apache AH-64 D manufactured by Boeing.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Oct 2011 23:18

ramana wrote:Austin, Missiles dont have average speed. Its the terminal velocity that matters. And even the Mach number doesnt matter. What matters is the final velocity in m/sec or ft/sec. Mach number varies with altitude.

Raman,
I don't understand what you mean by quoted statements. Everything that travels and reaches somewhere has an average speed including missiles right? Average speed of a missile is a very important parameter that determins the time available for AMD to enemy and response time to decision makers. Mach number would matter as it shortens the time, determins final velocity and allows faster response time etc? Why is final velocity so much more important in your view? What matters at least for modern short range missiles like Shourya is the total trajectory design in shape, altitude and speed (avg and final). A lot of missiles are being designed with fast boost, lower trajectory, lifting body design for better average speed etc

Final velocity becomes more important for long range missiles trying to maximize the range to the borders of design points? Newer missile designs are carrying additional rocket fuel for generating desired trajectories, average speeds and terminal velocities that would be considered sub-optimal by a conventional long range missile designer focused on maximizing range with perfect ballastic trajectory and optimized final velocity.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Oct 2011 06:50

PratikDas wrote:HELINA tested on ALH Rudra - This was the first test in which an Indian missile was tested form an Indian platform.

Predictably you see Pars L3 and Spike jumping up and offering their wares considering that Helina is almost ready!!!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 09:32

The need for any evaluation of imported systems is not really that urgent. I feel that the Helina can enter service by 2014 at the latest. While any purchase of the foreign system if approved today will only arrive by 2013.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 09:34

Shrinivasan wrote:
PratikDas wrote:HELINA tested on ALH Rudra - This was the first test in which an Indian missile was tested form an Indian platform.
Predictably you see Pars L3 and Spike jumping up and offering their wares considering that Helina is almost ready!!!

The Pars L3 test and Spike testing has preceeded the development on the HELINA. And it has been stressed that these are interim measures - simply because the helicopter is ready and needs a ATGM now. Unless, someone can tell me that HELINA will be ready in next couple of months, I don't think there is any point making the helo go with-out a proper ATGM.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 09:45

Rohit,

The point that you make is valid. However, the fear that I have is that it will lead to a repeat of the T90 Vs Arjun situation. In terms of 3rd gen ATGMs as well. Moreover, as the NAG is a fully developed missile (I the reports are to be believed). The efforts required to develop the HELINA will not be that great. Nor will they be time as time consuming.

A delay of a few months will not make too great a difference in the combat capabilities of the IA strike Helos.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 09:52

Pratyush wrote:Rohit,

The point that you make is valid. However, the fear that I have is that it will lead to a repeat of the T90 Vs Arjun situation. In terms of 3rd gen ATGMs as well. Moreover, as the NAG is a fully developed missile (I the reports are to be believed). The efforts required to develop the HELINA will not be that great. Nor will they be time as time consuming.

A delay of a few months will not make too great a difference in the combat capabilities of the IA strike Helos.

I fully concur on the fear part. The shenanighans are all too well know.

However, we really don't know on the development timeline of HELINA; I'm sure if it was a matter of months, the things would have been different. I will ideally want to wait and get some official/DRDO news on the timelines. Maybe, Chacko can help on this one.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Oct 2011 11:13

rohitvats wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Rohit,

The point that you make is valid. However, the fear that I have is that it will lead to a repeat of the T90 Vs Arjun situation. In terms of 3rd gen ATGMs as well. Moreover, as the NAG is a fully developed missile (I the reports are to be believed). The efforts required to develop the HELINA will not be that great. Nor will they be time as time consuming.

A delay of a few months will not make too great a difference in the combat capabilities of the IA strike Helos.
I fully concur on the fear part. The shenanighans are all too well know.

However, we really don't know on the development timeline of HELINA; I'm sure if it was a matter of months, the things would have been different. I will ideally want to wait and get some official/DRDO news on the timelines. Maybe, Chacko can help on this one.

Looking at the news report that was posted yesterday (below), HELINA is just entering "full testing" phase. I would think FOC is still 3 years away along with the risks of delays. In the last few years, we have seen the Indian Armed Forces ordering an "interim" foreign product that is mature with an option to purchase more if indigenous product suffers setbacks. This way the forces are not hampered by inordinate delays, and I think it is a valid risk mitigation strategy. However, IMO, the Indian Armed Forces should still have/make room for indigenous products even after delays in order to foster the growth of indigenous capability.

PratikDas wrote:
Pratik_S wrote:HELINA tested on ALH Rudra

India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Program got another boost last week when the HELINA Anti- Tank missile was successful tested on the ALH Rudra. It was an separation test which was 100% success. This was the first test in which an Indian missile was tested form an Indian platform. A full test will follow soon.
...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 11:25

^^^

That is well and good. But the Helina is not a new project. Most of the challenges which had to be over come have already been overcome. The only significant change from the existing project is the launch platform. The challenges are easily overcome.

The previous gen TOW & HOT. were all common missiles. I.e the same missile could be fired from airborne platform and the jeep platform.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Oct 2011 11:54

it shouldn't take more than a year, let alone 3.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2011 12:41

rohitvats wrote:However, we really don't know on the development timeline of HELINA; I'm sure if it was a matter of months, the things would have been different. I will ideally want to wait and get some official/DRDO news on the timelines.

DRDO started with a 4 Km range missile and extended to 7 Km. In April 2011 it was announced that the first demonstration flight test of the 7-km range Helina is planned to be conduced early 2012. Recently, flight-testing from a ground-based launcher to establish the guidance scheme featuring “lock-on after launch” concept was conducted successfully at a range of 4.2 km. The DRDO proposed to carry out a guided flight test against a tank target by the end of 2011. I don't know how many tests need to be conducted, how envelopes need to be expanded and when user trials would commence.

There is also a proposal to increase range to >20Km. Yet another project is to integrate the HELINA onto the Rustom-H MALE UAV.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 13:09

Pratyush wrote:^^^

That is well and good. But the Helina is not a new project. Most of the challenges which had to be over come have already been overcome. The only significant change from the existing project is the launch platform. The challenges are easily overcome.

The previous gen TOW & HOT. were all common missiles. I.e the same missile could be fired from airborne platform and the jeep platform.

Pratyush, with all due respect, the above are general comments which shed no light on the status of program. The report on the missile test says that it was a "missile seperation test". From whatever I've been able to glean from the net, the same means validation of the aerodynamic aspects of the missile...the missile is released as a dumb-bomb. I'm willing to be corrected if the missile seperated using its own motor.

SSridhar has posted some information. And based on that, we're some way away from seeing the missile in service. How much, only DRDO can say.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 13:32

rohitvats wrote: Pratyush, with all due respect, the above are general comments which shed no light on the status of program. The report on the missile test says that it was a "missile seperation test". From whatever I've been able to glean from the net, the same means validation of the aerodynamic aspects of the missile...the missile is released as a dumb-bomb. I'm willing to be corrected if the missile seperated using its own motor.

SSridhar has posted some information. And based on that, we're some way away from seeing the missile in service. How much, only DRDO can say.

Rohit,

That's exactly what I am trying to say. Other then launching it in a fully functional configuration from an airborne platform. DRDO has done every thing else, with the existing NAG. Translating that into a functional HELINA should not be a time consuming process.

The flight control laws are validated, as are the seeker and the warhead. The modification that has to happen is just a function of launching it from an airborne platform. Even there the first test drop test has been a success. If the report is to be believed.

Unless, the configuration of the missile it self has been changed. Making it a completely new missile, requiring a full developmental programme. In the absence of a new development programme. The HELINA , by the end of next year, ought to enter user trials phase. (This comment is based on the assumption of the NAG meeting all the service parameters.). If it did not, then I am making an A$$ of my self and wasting everyone's time on this subject.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 13:40

This is a much better material on the status of the missile development.

From FrontierIndia: http://frontierindia.net/helina-missile ... k-realised

Excerpt:

The data link consists of helicopter-and missile-borne trans-receiver modules. The helicopter borne module is supposed to consist of a two-way C band command transmitter with antenna switching and an S band video receiver with input antenna switching mechanism.

Similarly, the missile-borne unit is expected to consist of a dual C band command receiver with linear AGC and an S band video transmitter with antenna switching logic.

ECCM has also been tested.

Two NAG missiles were fired from a ground launcher in full Helina configuration with RF data link. The range of operation was 4 km. Two hot targets separated by 30 m were erected at 4 km from launch point. The seeker was focused on first target when missile was launched. During missile flight the target video received via data-link was monitored by weapon system officer. Based on the target video. The track gate was shifted to the second target and lock command was issued using command link. It was stated that the officer could perform all the tasks within 10 seconds of missile flight from ground itself.

The field test to validate range of operation was carried out and a range of approximately 10 km was established. All the interface checks in full mission configuration were carried out and the LOAL principle was verified.

Helina’s flight duration is approximately 40 seconds

Helina is a fast track project spanning just 33 months to establish its full functionality with ALH. The 4 to 6 months time frame was given for realization of both the helicopter and the missile data link units

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 13:47

What we need to understand from clarity is (a) 33 months from when? (b) And is the 4-6 months timeframe for data link seperate from the 33 months period.

Another important point - we need to look out for the number of foreign missiles order. The WSI-Dhruv is just about entering production and given the production rate, next 24-36 months are going to see not more that 25-30 helicopters.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2011 13:52

rohitvats wrote:
The range of operation was 4 km. . . .The track gate was shifted to the second target and lock command was issued using command link.

That was the test I was referring to and also the 'lock on after launch' (LOAL) feature that was validated.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Oct 2011 15:50

rohitvats wrote:What we need to understand from clarity is (a) 33 months from when? (b) And is the 4-6 months timeframe for data link seperate from the 33 months period.

From info in public domain you can gather than entire project duration is expected to be 30 odd months. In another 12 months, I guess, it will be ready for trials/induction. No, 4 -6 months is part of that 33 months period. Captive trials are over. Now 'separation' is tested. It is not like releasing dumb-bombs but very similar to that of PARS3. Infact HELINA is very much similar to PARS3.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 16:40

^^^Kanson, my limited point was this - did the seperation test involve releasing the missle from pylon under gravity or did the missile motor fire and propelled the missile clear of the aircraft? From what I've read, the former happens first and then the second step is executed.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Oct 2011 17:08

No gravity induced launch. It is tube launched, just as the way from ground as we seen in NAG, but in air.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 17:23

^^^I think I should have been more clear. What I meant was, the seperation of missile under gravity is tested first. And then, the seperation under own motor is tested.

Is the HELINA encased in a tube or is it like Hellfire? Thanx.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Oct 2011 18:21

HELINA is encased in a tube. Check the firing of PARS 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAP2WX_cWVk. It will be similar.

Hellfire is rail launched.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 11:20

Finally essential ToT is happening http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 568440.ece

At present, the BrahMos engines are produced at Orenburg in Russia.

a transfer of technology agreement would soon be signed between the appropriate authorities of the two sides to manufacture the engine in India.

Besides the BATL, one more Indian company would be qualified to make the missile's engines.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Oct 2011 11:32

tsarkar wrote:Finally essential ToT is happening http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 568440.ece
At present, the BrahMos engines are produced at Orenburg in Russia.

a transfer of technology agreement would soon be signed between the appropriate authorities of the two sides to manufacture the engine in India.

Besides the BATL, one more Indian company would be qualified to make the missile's engines.

From tsarkar link

While major trade unions such as the CITU and the INTUC had understood the ‘sensitive' nature of the establishment, the BrahMos Employees' Union affiliated to the AITUC launched a series of baseless campaigns against the company, said sources in the BATL.

“The BrahMos Aerospace has India holding majority stakes, 50.5 percent to be precise, with Russia holding the rest. The BATL is its subsidiary, in the business of defence and aerospace production. So, how can you treat it as a routine private enterprise?” they said.

Do you think foreign powers have a leverage here to disrupt?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 11:57

HELINA is standard Nag with the rf datalink added.

The relative velocity of the launch heli adds to the increased range vis-a-vis ground launched platform. There is no extra propellant.

Nag design is also unusual in that the booster motor is ahead of the sustainer motor

trushant · Post by **trushant** » 25 Oct 2011 12:36

[quote]Besides the BATL, one more Indian company would be qualified to make the missile's engines.[/quote][/quote]
I guess it would be Godrej and Boyce - Aerospace division that would produce the Bramhos engines alongwith BATL

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Oct 2011 12:39

tsarkar wrote:Nag design is also unusual in that the booster motor is ahead of the sustainer motor

Nothing much has radically changed in Nag design since i first saw it two decades back in the 80's , what has changed changed is that it has become slimmer a direct effect of using more modern electronics which tend to get smaller and lighter.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 25 Oct 2011 13:44

Aditya_V wrote: From tsarkar link

While major trade unions such as the CITU and the INTUC had understood the ‘sensitive' nature of the establishment, the BrahMos Employees' Union affiliated to the AITUC launched a series of baseless campaigns against the company, said sources in the BATL.

“The BrahMos Aerospace has India holding majority stakes, 50.5 percent to be precise, with Russia holding the rest. The BATL is its subsidiary, in the business of defence and aerospace production. So, how can you treat it as a routine private enterprise?” they said.
Do you think foreign powers have a leverage here to disrupt?

Why do you need foreign powers for that? But infact I too believe its so.

I read in malayalam news papers about the allegations of AITUC. What they wrote tells the entire world that these a$$holes dont know the value of what they are working on and importance of Brahmos. AND they are going to manufacture its engines

you can see user trails failing due to engine failure

so forget about using it in war.

keltron/keltec was a sinking ship, it is only the money from drdo thats keeping it alive. employees were literally begging for salaries but once they started getting their salaries on time they started showing the true colours. as per communist theory its haram to work.

you might remember the prev commie govt didnt even handover the land as promised. its in an ideal location, just a 10m road that seperates the facility from airport. the commie variants(CPI/CPIM) may have hidden agenda in the brahmos project and they are not going to allow it to work properly. how can they hurt comrade china? sometime back one commie state minister went to see BATL along with Prime Minister but the CISF didnt allow him to go inside and he had to wait outside for the PM to return.

it was a win-win for state-centre-empoyees. but now its only the interest shown by antony which is keeping it alive.

its not just BATL even ISRO also was a victim manytimes, for eg: IIST drama. i still remember the incidents during hartals (which is 2-10 per month in trivandrum). my house was just 2 km away from LPSC and as kids we used to go to play in the road leading to ISRO on hartal days. couple of times our commie friends tried to stop/throw stones at ISRO buses on hartal days. their order was none will be allowed to work. a handful of CISF guys did their duty well and never after commies tried to show their love to ISRO.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Oct 2011 23:22

Interesting data on prahaar

'Prahaar' Missile

Battlefield Support
DRDO successfully flight-tested its latest surface-to-surface missile, Prahaar from Launch Complex III, off Chandipur Coast, ITR, Balasore, Orissa. The missile with a range of 150 kms, comparable to ATACMS missile of the United States of America, fills the vital gap between multi barrel rockets and medium-range ballistic missiles. Prahaar, capable of carrying different types of warheads, operates as battlefield support system to the Indian Army.
The missile, with a length of 7.3 metres and diameter of 420 mm weighing 1280 kgs, and a single stage solid propulsion system, went to a height of 35 kms before reaching the targets in the range of 150 kms in about 250 seconds. Equipped with the state-of-the-art high accuracy navigation, guidance and electro-mechanical actuation systems with latest onboard computer, it achieved terminal accuracy of less than 10 metres.
Prahaar with a payload of 200 kgs, has a fast reaction time which is essential for the battlefield tactical missile. The missile was launched from a road mobile system which can carry six missiles at a time and can be fired in salvo mode in all directions covering the entire azimuth plane.
The missile system is developed to provide Indian Army a cost-effective, quick- reaction, all-weather, all-terrain and a high accurate battlefield support tactical system. The development of missile was carried out by the DRDO scientists in a short span of less than two years. The flight path of the missile was tracked and monitored by various radar systems and electro-optical systems located along the coast of Orissa. An Indian Naval ship located near target point in Bay of Bengal witnessed the final event.
The launch operations were witnessed by Dr VK Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Secretary Defence R & D and Lt Gen Vinod Nayanar, Director General of Artillery, IHQ of MoD (Army). A team of scientists headed by Mr Avinash Chander, Chief Controller R&D, DRDO coordinated the entire launching operations.
Defence Minister, Mr AK Antony has congratulated the scientists of DRDO for the successful maiden launch of the new missile.

Basically this is one awesome missile.