Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jan 2017 10:53

rsingh wrote:Why dont we demonstrate a satellite killer capability? That will calm down many people.

Only the fact of being a responsible space power which does not want to add to the debris already in orbit. I remember Dr. Saraswat claiming that India had all the building blocks for ASAT capability after the 2012 Agni-V test.

But, India should demonstrate an 'in-orbit inspection capability' through rendezvous & proximity operations. That is a necessity and would send the right signals to China.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 07 Jan 2017 15:39

Indranil, so why new A-1P and not Shaurya?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jan 2017 16:09

Faster. Needs to be for a dedicated n role.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 07 Jan 2017 20:57

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 57012.html

Extension for Nirbhay, panel to identify flaws

BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.

At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.

Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.

Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.

The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.

Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.

An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.

While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.

‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.

Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.

Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 07 Jan 2017 22:01

^ The ISU founder director is needed for this. ISRO has finetuned their inetrtial guidance and avionics substantially so they may be able to really help.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 07 Jan 2017 22:08

Most of the times, all that is needed is someone to walk in and fire all management at once. Reminds me of my young career days. Young engineering teams going under the radar and achieving success and suddenly every manager wants to attach his/her name to the success and take over. At the same time young engineers working against the system and with no prior lesson learned are going through iterations of trial and errors. Previously lot faster while flying under the radar and suddenly all decisions are being made by the management who has no clue and stuck in old relic days and stuck to their phantom deadlines and goal posts to which their bonuses are tied to. If I were to bet, I would not think twice before betting that the engineers probably already knew the potential issues but top management did not postpone deadlines to have issues corrected and stuck to a deadline. In young days, I had seen multiple times where upper management forced my teams to fire away systems and solutions that were already determined to be EOL'ed due to found deficiencies. Yes the same lot had marginal successes and those successes led to additional knowledge that EOLed the lot. Note that I count all tests as successes as there are no failures. Each one has new information to contribute which is a success.

Time and time you see that the powers be rather spend time and money behind panels doing FRACAS and independent SMEs do reviews and find what engineering teams most likely knew but the management made it not known. There is never money and deadline extension for start the next iteration but there is always money and time to go through panel reviews that come to conclusion that the next iteration is the way to go from now on.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2017 22:43

JTull wrote:Indranil, so why new A-1P and not Shaurya?

Cost. Agni-1P will likely be used to the west where there is no ABM cover. Shaurya on the other hand is likely to be used to the east.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Jan 2017 00:02

Indranil wrote:I am calling it so for want of a better name. It is the production standard Agni III.

There is no way a 'production standard Agni III' will weigh 22 tonnes. What you are calling Agni IIIP is most likely Agni IV (maraging steel first stage, composite second stage). Agni III was simply a stepping stone to the definitive article, Agni V. I doubt more than a handful have been produced.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 00:25

Tessy Thomas quoted a significant reduction in Agni 3 weight

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jan 2017 00:31

Sudeep, I am trsuting Tessy Thomas to know what she is speaking. Agni IIP/IV is 17 tons. Agni IIIP is 22 tons.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 191824.ece

Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Jan 2017 00:59

Indranil wrote:Sudeep, I am trsuting Tessy Thomas to know what she is speaking. Agni IIP/IV is 17 tons. Agni IIIP is 22 tons.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 191824.ece
Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.

Tessy Thomas surely knows what she is saying, its the reporter's awkward phrasing or a misquote that is causing the miscommunication. Its an entirely different missile system that is being talked off here, perhaps Agni IV. The fat lady that is Agni III simply cant shed that much weight without becoming an entirely new missile. (different propellant, new motors etc.)

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Jan 2017 01:02

The 22t missile is either a the Agni-2P/Agni-4 or the K4 missile. If Agni 3's weight was brought down by over 50% then there is no way it is the same missile.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Jan 2017 02:30

The nomenclature is based on range. The Agni IV is a new breed of missile as compared to Agni III. Later those technologies were introduced into Agni III and its weight massively reduced which Indranil is calling 3P.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Jan 2017 04:00

Supratik wrote:The nomenclature is based on range. The Agni IV is a new breed of missile as compared to Agni III. Later those technologies were introduced into Agni III and its weight massively reduced which Indranil is calling 3P.

I think DRDO may be planning to kill our enemies by confusing them to death..

Death by Discombobulation!

Seriously, its likely 90% of the missiles weight is propellant (anything less and it would be really really inefficient). Even if 'new technologies' reduced the weight of the motors, machinery, fins etc. to 0, the fat lady would still way ~43-42 tonnes. Unless you also change the propellant.. In which case you have a new missile, not a weight reduced version of the original fat lady.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 06:43

Very likely propellant and casing was changed

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 06:47

Also the nose cone coating was changed which allowed a stupendous increase in range This in itself was supposed to disproportionately increase range for a given weight. We will never know true range but for all you know Agni 3 -5 may be in ICBM range. Our declared weights of missiles are disproportionately heavy for stated range compared to anu other missile in the world.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 08 Jan 2017 08:11

I don't understand this penchant for understating the range. Are we North Korea? Buggers chinnis have ICBM we will have more. That should be the stated policy.

Actually for nuke testing, North Korea has shown more guts than India.

1) does the gov really under-state the range?
2) If so why?
3) why can't they just say Agni-6 will circumnavigate the earth three times and hit anything anywhere...end of speculations.

We sent a rocket to Mars. Everyone knows we can reach anywhere on earth. Just state the true range... No need for woossyfooting. ..or overstate it and let Russians and Australians crap in their pants.

What's this gossiping on this forum "shhhh the coating will allow the "actual" range to be much more, o'man so coool". Or BRFees just like to write comfy homely feel good lines for each other without any proof.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jan 2017 08:42

look its like the morning after the marriage when the husband and wife walk out refreshed for breakfast.
everyone 'knows' what happened, some may even have heard the furtive noises late at night.
but its not considered polite to talk about 'it' or demand details.
but its public knowledge all the same.
for media optics if we state the real range as 8500km with a 750kg payload, it just gives the chinese media and sections of american media hostile to indic interests a free stick to beat the drum about indian threat to europe etc.

does UK or france go around constantly publishing maps of what areas of the world are covered by a submerged M51 or D5 launch from the Mer du Nord?

also before waving around a pitchfork one needs to have field deployed cansister systems under SFC in some numbers.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Jan 2017 09:07

All missiles of Agni series beyond Agni 2 are in the realm of the now cancelled (but tested once) Midgetman's amazing benchmarks on physical dimensions. At 13ton weight and 11k range, they set a benchmark to beat. 22 ton might be an achievable goal for a missile with a bigger throw-weight, but need to be squatter for SLBM use. But question is does it need to be that long and wide.

Missile versions do keep upgrading their motors, without the designation changing. Dont know if further clarifications will be forth coming

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jan 2017 09:37

the final frontier is moving the 1st stage to composite - this is what M51/D5/Bulava/Yars et al have done to reduce weight and improve the terminal speed at 1st stage burnout. maybe its some tech limit we are running up against there.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 10:10

^^ Its not a SHH nose cone coating. Here is one statement made and there was a DRDO quote to its use as wellthat was widely quoted
for eg

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... sile-range

BANGALORE: Indian scientists have developed path-breaking technology that has the potential to increase the range of missiles and satellite launch vehicles by at least 40%, a member of the team which achieved the technological breakthrough said.

India��s longest-range missile, Agni III, is capable of hitting targets 3,500 km away and the new technology could boost its range to 4,900 km. The enhanced range is made possible by adding a special-purpose coating of chromium metal to the blunt nose cone of missiles and launch vehicles, G Jagadeesh, an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here said.

IISc, which is in celebrating its centenary this year, has applied for an international patent for the technology.

��Objects such as missiles fly at hypersonic velocities which are more than five times the speed of sound and encounter atmospheric drag because of friction. The chromium coating works by adding temporary heat and pushing the stagnating gas away to create an easier path,�� Mr Jagadeesh said. Laboratory experiments have shown that atmospheric drag because of the coating fell by 47% and Mr Jagadeesh said a ��conservative estimate�� was that this would result in range going up at least 40%.

The findings of the team��which also includes Vinayak Kulkarni of IIT-Guwahati and G M Hegde, E Arunan and K P J Reddy of IISc��have been reported in the latest issue of the Physics of Fluids journal published by the American Institute of Physics.

The breakthrough also has potential to help avert problems of the type which led to break up in 2003 of the American space shuttle Columbia when it was re-entering the earth��s atmosphere. The disaster was caused by damage to the shuttle��s thermal protection system, killing seven crew members, including astronaut of Indian origin Kalpana Chawla.

The special-purpose coating in place of the tiles and panels which now protect orbiters against extreme heat during re-entry into the atmosphere is seen as distinct possibility.

��The coating evaporates once the object has re-entered the atmosphere. This novel method is path-breaking because additional energy is not required to reduce drag; objects which travel into space need to carry a much lower fuel load,�� he said.

In fact it was a widely quoted statement in all papers and occurred somewhere between Agni 3 and 4 launches

And in fact this is the link to the IISc reference

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/researchhigh/drag.shtml

And this is the article

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/researchhigh/p ... ds2008.pdf

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 10:16

Agni 6 may just be that - make that stage composite instead of maraging steel and this itself reduces the missile weight which will increase the range. This was possibly purposely done (staged increase in composite materials). The K series may be in fact be just that allowing smaller packages allowing it tofit submarines. Once that is done we may shift to all composite materials .

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Jan 2017 12:27

The plan is to convert Agni V 1st stage to composites. That will reduce weight further.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Jan 2017 12:51

prasannasimha wrote:^^ Its not a SHH nose cone coating. Here is one statement made and there was a DRDO quote to its use as wellthat was widely quoted
for eg

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... sile-range

BANGALORE: Indian scientists have developed path-breaking technology that has the potential to increase the range of missiles and satellite launch vehicles by at least 40%, a member of the team which achieved the technological breakthrough said.

India��s longest-range missile, Agni III, is capable of hitting targets 3,500 km away and the new technology could boost its range to 4,900 km. The enhanced range is made possible by adding a special-purpose coating of chromium metal to the blunt nose cone of missiles and launch vehicles, G Jagadeesh, an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here said.

IISc, which is in celebrating its centenary this year, has applied for an international patent for the technology.

��Objects such as missiles fly at hypersonic velocities which are more than five times the speed of sound and encounter atmospheric drag because of friction. The chromium coating works by adding temporary heat and pushing the stagnating gas away to create an easier path,�� Mr Jagadeesh said. Laboratory experiments have shown that atmospheric drag because of the coating fell by 47% and Mr Jagadeesh said a ��conservative estimate�� was that this would result in range going up at least 40%.

The findings of the team��which also includes Vinayak Kulkarni of IIT-Guwahati and G M Hegde, E Arunan and K P J Reddy of IISc��have been reported in the latest issue of the Physics of Fluids journal published by the American Institute of Physics.

The breakthrough also has potential to help avert problems of the type which led to break up in 2003 of the American space shuttle Columbia when it was re-entering the earth��s atmosphere. The disaster was caused by damage to the shuttle��s thermal protection system, killing seven crew members, including astronaut of Indian origin Kalpana Chawla.

The special-purpose coating in place of the tiles and panels which now protect orbiters against extreme heat during re-entry into the atmosphere is seen as distinct possibility.

��The coating evaporates once the object has re-entered the atmosphere. This novel method is path-breaking because additional energy is not required to reduce drag; objects which travel into space need to carry a much lower fuel load,�� he said.

In fact it was a widely quoted statement in all papers and occurred somewhere between Agni 3 and 4 launches

And in fact this is the link to the IISc reference

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/researchhigh/drag.shtml

And this is the article

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/researchhigh/p ... ds2008.pdf

This is Ablative coating for Heat shielding. I remember to have read this article way back in time when it appeared. There might be something innovating in the actual implementation (I am not sure exactly what) but the concept it not new as such and has been present for quite sometime. So what exactly is path breaking here..?? Or its only path-breaking in India specific context..?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jan 2017 13:47

Sudeepj, Abhik,

Agni IV is 17 Tons is confirmed by many news channels. So this 22 Tons is not Agni IV. The only other missile(s) which can be 22 Tons are Agni-III and K-4. Another way to look at it is as follows: If Agni for at 17 Tons can lob a 1 Ton payload to 4000 kms, what is the expected weight of Agni III to lob a 2 Ton payload to 3,500 kms?

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 08 Jan 2017 16:03

^^ I believe the specific method of ablative coating with chromium allowed a greatetravel distance. That was incorporated in al the further Iterations of Agni. I doubt they would have mentioned the actual methodology in any paper as it would be secret.(They applied for a patent so the actual method must be different significantly from other methods)

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Jan 2017 17:56

Re: Missile Weight/Range issue between Agni 3 and Agni 5 ..................

The May. 19-Jun. 01, 2012 edition of Frontline features an interview of Dr. Avinash Chander by T.S. Subramanian and is IMO the most authoritative account of how Agni-III, 48 tonnes in weight and 17 metres in length, evolved to Agni-V, 50 tonnes in weight and 17.5 metres in length, while range ballooned from 3,000 km to more than 5,000 km.

How did you achieve this quantum jump in range – from Agni-III's 3,000 km to Agni-V's 5,000 km?

We went through various steps. One was that we had to make the upper stages lighter. That was the first and most critical factor. We decided to make both the second and third upper stages of composites. That gave us a major benefit in terms of weight. In Agni-III, both the first and second stages were metallic.

Having made the composite stages, we found that they were coming out better than the metallic stages, strength-wise and property-wise. So we could operate at a higher pressure. So you do not have losses due to gravity, and the losses are reduced. We then went through a total philosophy change. Up to Agni-III, we ignite the upper stage first, then separate the lower stage so that there is no problem of separation.

We decided to leave behind that culture of space vehicles. We now put big retro motors, which create a thrust of four tonnes each – totally 16 tonnes of thrust – just to separate the stages so that no dead weight is passed on to the upper stage.

Correspondingly, we decided to make the mission stronger so that there are no interfaces and the separation is clean. We studied and created extensive models to simulate them on the ground in all types of disturbed conditions in wind tunnels. With all that, we could remove the inter-stages altogether. The weight we had reduced by making the upper stages of composites was fed back into the third upper stage. The weight did not increase overall, but the total energy increased considerably. To reach the 3,000-km range, you need a velocity of five kilometres per second. To reach the 5,000-km range, the velocity has to be more than six kilometres a second.

That was our approach to the repackaging of our vehicle. We made major modifications in the upper stage. V.G. Sekaran, Director, Advanced Systems Laboratory [ASL], DRDO, played a primary role in showing us how to repackage the payload structures so that the weight comes down by 1,000 kg.

How did the payload structures lose weight?

The payload structures had become much lighter; the weight was almost 60 per cent less than what it was earlier. It was a very elaborate exercise. We went to all the stages to see how to lose weight, how to repackage, how to reduce length, what technologies are needed for these, what was the modelling needed, and so on. That was how we could pack practically the same weight – from Agni-III, 48 tonnes in weight and 17 metres in length, to Agni-V, 50 tonnes in weight and 17.5 metres in length, but from a range of 3,000 km to more than 5,000 km. We wanted to make sure that all these capabilities were first proven in Agni-IV. We removed the open inter-stage. We had a closed inter-stage. We had composite motors. We had a compact payload. Of course, there is a vast difference between Agni-IV and Agni-V payloads. But the basic system was the same. But Agni-V had much more visibility and we wanted to make sure that all the elements of Agni-V were good. Agni-IV as a system did its job.

‘Quality our concern'

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Jan 2017 18:07

So applying all composite stages, retro rockets for stage separation and elimination of inter stage does one get a 22 Tonne missile for a 3,000 km range aka Agni III?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jan 2017 18:26

onlee if you want 3 ton payload a mini-SS18ski

JohnTitor · Post by **JohnTitor** » 08 Jan 2017 18:27

Q for the gurus - If as claimed above, 90% of the missile weight is fuel, then how is it that the US D5 has a range of 12k+ km (essentially it is more than 50% of the circumference of the earth to allow the US to hit any target on the planet from anywhere on the planet) for a weight of 59t, similarly the Russian Bulava has a range of 8k km for a weight of 37t. But the Agni6 has a range of 8k km but a weight of 70t ?

Seems to me that either the ranges quoted or "wrong" or the agni is inefficient.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jan 2017 18:32

the 1st stage is the largest hence the delta in weight between composite and maraging steel will be large. plus the range quote for any agni is always with some max payload which may not even be possible without MIRV...for example suppose our largest tested warhead is 500kg, stating the range with a 2 ton payload does not make sense -1 is all it can throw for now.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 08 Jan 2017 19:14

What was the purpose of Dhanush (Naval Version) of Prithvi? Surely it was a never intended to be an operational platform but more of an experimental platform. Question is what we got by multiple Dhanush test even fairly recently?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Jan 2017 19:23

Agni 3 is supposed to be 17m tall and 2m in diameter. To bring down the weight of this missile by over 50% the size of the missile will also have to be reduced, since the structural component is only ~10-15% and rest is fuel. This so called Agni - 3P cannot weigh 22t and still be a ~17m tall 2m diameter missile at the same time.

Indranil wrote:Sudeepj, Abhik,

Agni IV is 17 Tons is confirmed by many news channels. So this 22 Tons is not Agni IV. The only other missile(s) which can be 22 Tons are Agni-III and K-4. Another way to look at it is as follows: If Agni for at 17 Tons can lob a 1 Ton payload to 4000 kms, what is the expected weight of Agni III to lob a 2 Ton payload to 3,500 kms?

Or one could ask why Agni 5 weighs 50t when when A3 (on which it is based on) weighs only 22t?

IMO we are reading too much into a single line from a DDM article. The Frontline article posted by arun on improvements from A3 to A5 gives a much more realistic picture.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Jan 2017 19:27

arun wrote:
The payload structures had become much lighter; the weight was almost 60 per cent less than what it was earlier. It was a very elaborate exercise. We went to all the stages to see how to lose weight, how to repackage, how to reduce length, what technologies are needed for these, what was the modelling needed, and so on. That was how we could pack practically the same weight – from Agni-III, 48 tonnes in weight and 17 metres in length, to Agni-V, 50 tonnes in weight and 17.5 metres in length, but from a range of 3,000 km to more than 5,000 km. We wanted to make sure that all these capabilities were first proven in Agni-IV. We removed the open inter-stage. We had a closed inter-stage. We had composite motors. We had a compact payload. Of course, there is a vast difference between Agni-IV and Agni-V payloads. But the basic system was the same. But Agni-V had much more visibility and we wanted to make sure that all the elements of Agni-V were good. Agni-IV as a system did its job.

Wonder what that meant.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 08 Jan 2017 19:49

It's probably means the first stage only. The first stage of Agni-III was around 32 tons which is now reduced to 22 tons with composites and the DDMs reporting the whole missile 22 tons.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Jan 2017 20:56

AFAIK, it is the whole missile. If you compare best-in-class ICBMs obviously, range and weight don't match. Either the technology is inefficient or they are understating range. Payload is also a factor. They are stating max payload. AFAIK, non-MIRV'd warheads no longer weigh 1 tonne let alone 2.5 tonne. To be fair to them they have never stated a 8000 km range, always more than 5000-5500 km range. It is the Chinese who are saying it is 8000 km range and everyone now has picked up on it. The Indian strategic program is based on deliberate ambiguity.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jan 2017 21:34

Prithwiraj wrote:What was the purpose of Dhanush (Naval Version) of Prithvi? Surely it was a never intended to be an operational platform but more of an experimental platform. Question is what we got by multiple Dhanush test even fairly recently?

Till Arihant becomes fully operational they are to provide strategic deterrence for the naval arm.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 08 Jan 2017 23:52

But apart from one vessel (Sukanya) it was not even deployed anywhere else no?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 02:07

Deterrence Against The Dragon: Why Agni’s Arc Worries China
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ies-china/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 02:12

Agni Trials: By threatening India over test-firing of ICBMs, China has revealed its insecurity
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=249763