Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 14:37

perhaps a deliberate decision to salvage the parts in better shape for analysis. a crude parachute to make it land gently, packed into part of the warhead section would be even better to recover.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Mar 2013 16:18

No disrespect to our NBay boffins at all,but the NDTV (?) clipshowing the missile in the lab and at close quarters was a revelation.The missile looked as if it had been made in a motor workshop with a rivet an inch casing.There were rivets everywhere.This was no sleek Brahmos,Tomahawk,etc.The shut lines resembled that of an ambassador car straight out of Hind Motors and the metallic "clunk" that greeted the ears when the folding wings were opened in place added to the "garage workshop" origin and answered a key Q,that the missile's body probably lacked any composites at all.If this is so then it would have its weight penalty and range limiter despite its size.

As I've said at the beginning,no disrespect to the boffins,but a Q as to why the missile isn't refined in the finish like others.A similar Q asked by westerners when they saw the MOIG-29 (crude) and SU-27 (smooth)at Farnborough for the first time,realising that the Russians had the ability to produce boe fired from torpedo tubesth crude and polished products that could both "do the business",built on diff. prod. lines.

From dimensions given,it appears that it can be fired from std. sized torpedo tubes.More tests are certainly needed esp. to validate the engine which appears to have failed this test.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 13 Mar 2013 16:26

Buffoon's blog:

Article:Maiden Test-Firing Of India’s Nirbhay Strategic Subsonic Cruise Missile A Moderate Success
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2013 ... rbhay.html

nits · Post by **nits** » 13 Mar 2013 16:35

we are just seeing pics of debris; it may be recovered from sea and kept on land and then pic was taken... wishful thinking

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 Mar 2013 16:49

Philip wrote:No disrespect to our NBay boffins .................

I guess stuff made in Russia has no rivets in them. I can't believe it is the resident russophile who is complaining about lack of finish etc. (would have expected it from massa fans). I hope one remembers the saying "people in glass houses should not throw stones."

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Mar 2013 16:51

so something happened when it took the turn , it didnt correct itself and kept turning maybe, and they switched off the engine, it kep going and hit the coasts

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 13 Mar 2013 17:30

Rivets per se is not a problem as long as they are counter sunk and not sticking out to mess up the laminar flow. It could even facilitate the plug in modules via easy access, besides this is at this stage Advanced tech demonstrator. In DRDO shop talk.

I am still convinced that flight path not being the usual or calibration was not the problem
One or more transducers failed or it could be one of the linear actuators failed.

If you look at the wings of commercial a/c like Air Bus or Boeing you can see umpteen number of counter sunk screws and rivets

At this I am not looking for a C Class but a Morris minor or standard herald just go fall on the head of the enemy

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 13 Mar 2013 18:15

so something happened when it took the turn , it didnt correct itself and kept turning maybe, and they switched off the engine, it kep going and hit the coasts

Seems like too much signal correction leading to a drastic 90 deg turn? path correction problem?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Mar 2013 18:50

No disrespect to our NBay boffins at all,but the NDTV (?) clipshowing the missile in the lab and at close quarters was a revelation.The missile looked as if it had been made in a motor workshop with a rivet an inch casing.There were rivets everywhere.This was no sleek Brahmos,Tomahawk,etc.The shut lines resembled that of an ambassador car straight out of Hind Motors and the metallic "clunk" that greeted the ears when the folding wings were opened in place added to the "garage workshop" origin and answered a key Q,that the missile's body probably lacked any composites at all.If this is so then it would have its weight penalty and range limiter despite its size.

Philip

you are out of your league on this. 10 9 8 7 6..

now will Shiv jump on this

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 18:57

some claim the waypoints were not programmed properly. hard to believe but known to happen. planetary landers have crashed because of issues like imperial & metric units used in different parts of the code.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 13 Mar 2013 20:25

It was with mars rover program that units were mixed up between Km mtrs and miles feet
Resulting in the parachute for controlled decent opened very late and the rover impacted with velocity on the Martian terrain

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 20:27

two nuggets I gathered from a blog that cannot be named.
- even if missile had flown full range successfully, it carried no warhead and plan was shut the engine and make it glide down to a controlled crash landing. this was to recover the onboard data recorders.
- IN uses manned a/c with cameras to follow subsonic ASMs during test fires...so a MKI following the nirbhay all the way to impact is plausible

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2013 20:40

best place for controlled termination would be then on the beach sands/shore lines very close to water.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 13 Mar 2013 21:25

Singha wrote:some claim the waypoints were not programmed properly. hard to believe but known to happen. planetary landers have crashed because of issues like imperial & metric units used in different parts of the code.

,
IRC, PSLV D1 failed at stage sep. , primarily due to a software error.....maybe this is also a software issue.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Mar 2013 21:28

Prasun Sengupta has made the impact point in the middle of Kakinada port.
lol

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 21:29

Philip wrote:No disrespect to our NBay boffins at all,but the NDTV (?) clipshowing the missile in the lab and at close quarters was a revelation.The missile looked as if it had been made in a motor workshop with a rivet an inch casing.There were rivets everywhere.This was no sleek Brahmos,Tomahawk,etc.The shut lines resembled that of an ambassador car straight out of Hind Motors and the metallic "clunk" that greeted the ears when the folding wings were opened in place added to the "garage workshop" origin and answered a key Q,that the missile's body probably lacked any composites at all.If this is so then it would have its weight penalty and range limiter despite its size.

As I've said at the beginning,no disrespect to the boffins,but a Q as to why the missile isn't refined in the finish like others.A similar Q asked by westerners when they saw the MOIG-29 (crude) and SU-27 (smooth)at Farnborough for the first time,realising that the Russians had the ability to produce boe fired from torpedo tubesth crude and polished products that could both "do the business",built on diff. prod. lines.

From dimensions given,it appears that it can be fired from std. sized torpedo tubes.More tests are certainly needed esp. to validate the engine which appears to have failed this test.

Philip sir,

I have a question for you. How difficult is it to make a composite tube in India? that clank that you heard of the wing was that of "locking" the wing into place.

Nirbhay's scorecard:
Ejection from canister: Pass
High-G turns into horizontal flight: Pass
Wing deployment after booster separation and subsequent stabilization: Pass
Philip sir's Russian-rivet test: Fail

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 21:45

Launch video (with a lot of rona-dhona):
[youtube]rvthkQxpJbk&[/youtube]

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 13 Mar 2013 21:53

Amerika ki Tom Hawk says the video

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Mar 2013 22:08

SaiK wrote:best place for controlled termination would be then on the beach sands/shore lines very close to water.

Best "controlled crash" is in coastal water so frogmen can retrirve it more or less intact. Worst is to "control crash" it on land where it will be smashed to bits and could kill Indian citizens. But this assumes we still had control which is not true--engine was shut off when it became uncontrollale. IMO the Sukhoi following it should have shot it down over the sea.

The whole event suggests that Nirbhay could have been tested before with relative success, hence the amazing level of confidence in flying it all along the east coast and the press bandobast.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Mar 2013 22:12

I believe the missile was crash landed to stick to MTCR regime of less than 300 KM

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 13 Mar 2013 22:17

wouldnt the missile navigation unit calculate the most optimal route to destination? Why would waypoints need to be programmed in place like they do for fighter/bomber missions?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2013 22:31

Waypoints need to be programmed to take routes that avoid known enemy sam or fighter activity.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 22:33

Victor wrote: The whole event suggests that Nirbhay could have been tested before with relative success, hence the amazing level of confidence in flying it all along the east coast and the press bandobast.

That press bandobast was at ADE, Bangalore. The hangar where Pallava Bagla went to has Rustom-1 too. They not have taken Rustom-1 to Chandipur.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Mar 2013 22:41

indranilroy wrote:
Victor wrote: The whole event suggests that Nirbhay could have been tested before with relative success, hence the amazing level of confidence in flying it all along the east coast and the press bandobast.
That press bandobast was at ADE, Bangalore. The hangar where Pallava Bagla went to has Rustom-1 too. They not have taken Rustom-1 to Chandipur.

True but the color scheme of the tested round....was it not IAF scheme per SS saar's post? Seemed like taken from a prod run.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2013 22:45

SagarAg wrote:But 6-8 months to fix the errors before next test when 90% of the mission objective were met? I was hoping for the next test within 3-4 months after such a looong wait but 6-8 months IMHO is on the higher side if they don't need to change a major design/structural component of the missile.

Its because of a disease called the LCA-syndrome: whereby our collective media will self flagellate themselves for every failure and project their lack of self respect onto DRDO. The various reports yesterday talked of how this failure is a "blow", "setback", "fizzling" and the inevitable comparison with paint-job Babur and how China is 1000 years ahead in this field.

The real timeline is: 1 month to determine root cause, 1 month to fix it & 6 months to retest the cr@p out of it, so that Muharram season doesnt start again

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Mar 2013 22:50

indranilroy wrote:
srai wrote:quote="indranilroy" LCA should be able to carry upto 2 Nirbhay missiles on it's two under-wing hardpoints and may be one on the central hard point. Rafale and MKI will be able to carry more.

I am jumping the gun here. I think DRDO should develop a shorter version of Nirbhay too. Something like the 350-700 km range, about 500-800 kgs in weight. It should be easy to do./quote

The length of Nirbhay is around 6m. This may be bit too long as almost all fighter-launched large air-to-surface missiles are between 4m and 5m. Brahmos-1 being the exception at around 8m. As a result only a large fighter like the MKI can carry it in its centreline pylon. BTW, Brahmos-3 ASM is going to be 3m shorter than Brahmos-1.
If LCA can carry the KH-59, then it should be able to carry Nirbhay as well. Also the 1200 ltr drop tanks are not much shorter. Typically they would be 5.5 mtrs in length.

Image courtesy: Ajai Shukla

AFAIK, KH-59 is carried by Su-27/30/34/35 series. I have yet to see a photo of it being carried by anything smaller like the MiG-27/29. While it maybe theoretically possible on LCA, we'll have to wait and see if the LCA can carry both KH-59 and Nirbhay. That picture you had posted earlier had a bullet point for integration with MKI only.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2013 22:54

Manish_Sharma wrote:http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... e__st__860

Arun_S:

Earlier news reports have thouroughly confused armchair warriors, with speculation of a reusable bomber that carried bombs and comes back.

DRDO has said it is like and better than the unkill tomahawak (THK). It can drop many bomb-lets each weighing few kgs on its way just like THK, doesn't mean it is meant to fly back in which case it be called a UAV or UCAV. Unlike THK however Nirbhay can fearlessly hover around kill zone waiting to choose and engage the target (s) at a time and preferred attitude of engagement (I.e. azimuth of engagement). Better than tomahawk, its engine inlets are recessed thus RCS is really very tiny (compared to THK or its likes) even from frontal perspective. Side perspective RCS is even tinier.

From the available picture one can see the center-of-gravity of the craft as flies the 1000 km (location of wing hing).

IMHO DRDO has done a V good job at the design. Good test.

One can only imagine the smarts of teh system. Navigation is expected to be very accurate thanks to recent advances we have seen in other flying vehicles. DRDO report points to intelligence to do target acquisition late in the game, meaning its tip has range of optical/multispectral/hyperspectral sensors, sensor fusion and more importantly classification, recognition and prioritization of target field. They may start with simpler algorithm, and then graduate to the bleeding edge (if only they choose the person who has the know-how in teh country).

Arun is right about DDM "dropping bombs" & "return trip" misinterpretation, which was also called out on this forum. The surprising part is that this was in a report by TSS and Mallikarjun - who usually get their facts right. Maybe they had an off day.

But I dont see how Nirbhay has a lower RCS than Tomahawk or a more recessed intake. Both missiles' dimensions and design looks comparable enough to me

If Nirbhay works as promised (which I am pretty confident about), it would have jumped the earlier Tomahawk generations and would be equivalent to the later models like Block-3, 4 or Tactical THK. However, it would probably be not as good as THK in range & payload for the same dimensions, thanks to Unkil's mastery of turbofans and fuels

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 13 Mar 2013 23:15

why MTCR? does it use a Russian engine or any significant component being imported? the range demonstration in the next test would reveal

btw, the report of next test after 8 months suggests that they have taken current 'mixed bag' test in their stride and sticking to the original test schedule aligning with the viewpoint that this failure was planned or it was not too serious

The coast hugging flight path by the unmentionable forum takes it close to Vizag with a probable end-point at Suryalanka test site? and from the same forum the DSMAC or SAR based navigation sensor isn't integrated yet which means this test was based on INS+GPS? and Uncle can switch off GPS at the right moment like over Vizag. That risk will not be taken even remotely again suggesting a planned 'failure'

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 13 Mar 2013 23:22

Prem Kumar ji, the Tomahawk Block I to III looked like this:

Note the engine intake and imagine the RCS from the front of the missile and it's side considering the intake walls and edges. Nirbhay, with its recessed intake doesn't have such protruding surfaces for radar reflections [it has others but not these in addition].

Arun_S ji might be unaware that there is now a Tomahawk Block IV with a recessed intake just like our Tomahawkutty:

Click to enlarge:

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Mar 2013 23:23

Nirbhay's external features seem to be influenced by 3M-54E1 Klub missile. Long time ago, there were unconfirmed reports on India and Novatar working on K-100 - a long ranged AAM derived from 3M-54 Klub. It would seem those reports may not have been entirely untrue; it was a cruise missile instead.

Nirbhay (note the air-intake design but wings are in different location)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 23:42

pankajs wrote:True but the color scheme of the tested round....was it not IAF scheme per SS saar's post? Seemed like taken from a prod run.

Quite frankly, they might have already built a couple of samples already. But, I feel this is the first test of Nirbhay. ADE even gave out a tender for the transport logistics it needed from Bangalore to Chandipur. And why would IAF have a surface to surface missile?

srai wrote: AFAIK, KH-59 is carried by Su-27/30/34/35 series. I have yet to see a photo of it being carried by anything smaller like the MiG-27/29. While it maybe theoretically possible on LCA, we'll have to wait and see if the LCA can carry both KH-59 and Nirbhay. That picture you had posted earlier had a bullet point for integration with MKI only.

I have nothing to show but a list of reports like this one from AWST. We will have to wait and see if the reports are right. But I see no difficulty why Tejas can't carry it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Mar 2013 23:57

On second thoughts, there most probably was a chase plane on the Nirbhay. Otherwise it, makes no sense to have that paint scheme on the fins. Probably the nose cone was painted bright orange for higher visibility as well.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 14 Mar 2013 00:34

indranilroy wrote:And why would IAF have a surface to surface missile?

For the same reasons it has Prithvi missiles in it's inventory.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2013 00:48

^^^

We know from Kargil war that the IA and IAF have differing priorities on targets. The IA thinks in more tactical terms whereas the IAF more strategic. Given the long range of Nirbhay, even a SSM variant could be an asset to the IAF since its target priorities would be quite different (i.e. airbases, C2, air defences, etc.) from that of the IA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Mar 2013 01:07

Yeah! you guys are right. Most probably it will be used by the IAF and IN. But I will still stick to my opinion of this being the first flight

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Mar 2013 01:18

PratikDas wrote:Prem Kumar ji, the Tomahawk Block I to III looked like this:

Note the engine intake and imagine the RCS from the front of the missile and it's side considering the intake walls and edges. Nirbhay, with its recessed intake doesn't have such protruding surfaces for radar reflections [it has others but not these in addition].

Arun_S ji might be unaware that there is now a Tomahawk Block IV with a recessed intake just like our Tomahawkutty:

PratikDas: I was referring to the Block IV design when I said it resembled Nirbhay. I didnt see what Block 2 or 3 looked like (your image didnt get pasted properly). I Googled around and found some images. I see what you are saying. Yes - absolutely, Nirbhay will have lower RCS than these previous THK designs. Its interesting that THK Blk IV, which has loitering capability was first tested only in 2002. If Nirbhay already has it, it means we have made several generational leaps and caught up within a decade of Khan. Not bad at all!

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Mar 2013 01:19

Additional details (source:PTI)

'Nirbhay' sub-sonic cruise missile destroyed in flight by India

The missile, which failed to hit the intended target in the sea, was terminated over the Bay of Bengal after it was airborne for about 25 minutes but crashed on land at some distance from a village near Kendrapara in Odisha, DRDO spokesman Ravi Gupta said. It is unusual for aborted missiles to fall on land.{It was flown over the sea so as to avoid mishaps from falling derbies and was never intended to be recovered on land, either in success or faliure}

There was no loss of life or property, Gupta said, as TV footage showed wreckage of the missile launched from here.

The DRDO while making the announcement, however, said the sub-sonic missile 'Nirbhay' (fearless) with a strike range of around 1,000 km was "successfully" launched and met the basic mission objectives and performed some of the manouveres satisfactorily.

"Nirbhay was successfully launched today at 1150 hrs from launch complex, Chandipur, Odisha, meeting the basic mission objectives successfully.

"After travelling approximately mid-way, deviations were observed from its intended course. Further, flight was terminated to ensure coastal safety," DRDO spokesman Ravi Gupta said in a statement.

The missile blasted off from a mobile launcher positioned in the launch pad¿3 of the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur, about 15 km from here.

The surface-to-surface sub-sonic cruise missile has the capability of being launched from land, sea and air, they said, adding Nirbhay has good loitering capability, good control and guidance, high degree of accuracy in terms of impact and very good stealth features.

Nirbhay was developed by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory based in Bangalore is stated to have a strike-range of around 1,000 km.

Even when it quotes DRDO certain portions seem to be the understanding of the reporter and may be inaccurate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Mar 2013 01:28

I know it sounds heretical but DRDO should declare this one as a fail and go back to the drawing board.

But for the grace of God, its deviant flight path and flight termination could have led to population losses.

Shutting down engine is hardly the right flight termination system.

And how does 25 min or 250 km equal half the range when it is stated to be 1000Km.

They should have said we had a flight anomaly during the first test flight and are investigating it.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Mar 2013 02:17

OK here is my theory.

There are no landing stations on the coast except the missile test range along the chandipur test range coast. I don't know if DRDO actually had an impact point close to Kakinada as mentioned by Prasun Sengupta (who we all know is >95% bakwaas info).
It is possible that the waypoints were planned in a way that after launch from ITR, the missile will fly along the coast, and then make a 180 degree turn and impact back close to ITR Chandipur.

So the DDM's story about the missile returning may be true.

Now if Nirbhay uses terracom guidance also, then there is not much use flying this thing over water right? It needs land and will correlate features with its maps and its waypoints in a 3 dimensional plane.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Mar 2013 02:42

Prem Kumar wrote: PratikDas: I was referring to the Block IV design when I said it resembled Nirbhay. I didnt see what Block 2 or 3 looked like (your image didnt get pasted properly). I Googled around and found some images. I see what you are saying. Yes - absolutely, Nirbhay will have lower RCS than these previous THK designs. Its interesting that THK Blk IV, which has loitering capability was first tested only in 2002. If Nirbhay already has it, it means we have made several generational leaps and caught up within a decade of Khan. Not bad at all!

Thanks for letting me know. I've moved the image of the older Tomahawk in my earlier post to imageshack.

Regarding loitering, I found something very interesting regarding the "Quick Strike Tomahawk" or QST and its loitering capability:

[Speculation] What if the SDRE scientists tested a S-shaped set of waypoints within a short range, as if testing obstacle avoidance, in the very first flight test and the onboard navigation computer had a "does not compute" moment? Unspeakable's Google Earth picture above does show that the navigational error originated at the knee point in the route. Perhaps that knee point was not a neat single change in orientation but a more complex obstacle-avoidance route. Although I would think that the problem in the extract above would've been simulated and resolved, it's still possible if the waypoints were updated midflight and the route had to be autonomously computed by the onboard navigation computer. [/Speculation]