Indian Missile Technology Discussion

kidoman · Post by **kidoman** » 30 Jan 2009 12:42

krishnan wrote:
Did they hide it? If they did , you would have never known that the test failed. As someone commented in that page "BS is creating new bs (bullshit) everyday in defence reporting". The test wasnt all that a failure.

The initial claim by DRDO was about the test being a complete success.
It appeared all over the news sites.
later on, in evening the truth came out.
Why create this success impression on the people and later on admit that it was a failure??

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 30 Jan 2009 12:55

IF IA wanted to hide it , it would have insisted that the test was a success because no one in the media has access to classfied testing info which they could reveal on their own , IA came out with the announcement and the reason for it.

That article is complete BS and has more errors than I could pick out.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 30 Jan 2009 13:22

p_saggu wrote:India is I think too far south to be able to intercept Ivan's missile launches.

If I may ask what is teh basis of that statement?
To begin with:

1. what is the altitude ICBM traverse?
2. What is the altitude mid course interceptors handle targets?

I hope answers to the above that will clarify the unfounded statement.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2009 15:04

Arun_S wrote:In 1980's a US RAND or military study US identified Indore as an ideal BMD site against Russia.

Consider this:
1, Russian attack from north pole is covered by ABM assets based in Canada,
2, Now Poland added to missile defense (ostensibly from evil and all powerful Eyiran)
3, North Pacific has established ship based and Anchorage based missile shield (ostensibly from evil and all powerful n.Korea)
4, Now a joint India-US ABM in India (ostensibly from evil and all powerful China)
Oh.... yessss.... I know who is being neutered, and whose enemy Russia is !
North, West, East and now South, what next ? Checkmate Ivan dude!

I onlee have my rustic "dhehaati" sense smelling the fragrance of earth after first rain shower to know what is coming!

Yindu made "Bhuddhi Chuytya"{Sanskrit for: devoid of intelligence} by wise white man from the west.

Actually Arun , the Missile Defence in its current form is hardly a threat to Russian massive offensive capability , the current capability of US is more to deal with limited capability of states like NK,Iran to some extent China and India. { though only NOKO and Iran are explicitly mentioned for obvious reason }

The site which is at Poland is a cause of worry and with the new regiem in US , is now more at the negotiating table .

According to Yuri Solmonov the chief designer of Topol-M , MIRV'd Topol i.e RS-24 and Bulava , even against a *full fledge* ABM systems deployed of Boost Phase ,Midcourse , Space based and GBI , the new ICBM/SLBM have 86 % chance of penetrating missile defense , they are quite confident of their new offensive system and the asymmetric response which they can provide.

If indeed the deployment of ABM system goes ahead in full steam ( which I think will not happen ) , it will have a serious impact on Arm Control negotiation and the Numbers of deployed active Nuclear warhead that Russia/US would like to deploy { currently capped at 1800 - 2200 active deployed }

My belief is they will negotiate on ABM system , and will return to a stable limited ABM systems with a warhead cap of 1500 active warhead on both sides

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2009 21:54

Nihat wrote:IF IA wanted to hide it , it would have insisted that the test was a success because no one in the media has access to classfied testing info which they could reveal on their own , IA came out with the announcement and the reason for it.

That article is complete BS and has more errors than I could pick out.

The problem is the DRDO and the services dont distinguish between requirements and goals. The vehicle taking of from the launcher cleanly and reaching the target are requirements. Hitting the particular target is a goal that has not been met. Once it is demonstrated then it can become a requirement.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 30 Jan 2009 23:27

Arun_S,
I am not of an engineering background, but on searching the net this is what I understand.

1. what is the altitude ICBM traverse?

This from Wiki ICBM page:

* boost phase — 3 to 5 minutes (shorter for a solid rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 7 km/s.
* midcourse phase — approx. 25 minutes — sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic orbit; the orbit is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km; the semi-major axis is between 3,186 km and 6,372 km; the projection of the orbit on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads, and penetration aids such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
* reentry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km) — 2 minutes — impact is at a speed of up to 4 km/s (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.

2. What is the altitude mid course interceptors handle targets?

These are the various ABM Systems with Ranges and Altitude ceilings.
1. PAC-3 : 160 Km - 25 Km
2. Arrow: 90 Km - 50 Km
3. S-300V: 120Km - 25Km.
4.S-300PMU: 195Km - ?40Km
5. S-400: 400Km - ??
6. SM-3 : > 500Km - >250Km

On Rockism,
For the Topol
At ground range ~ 250Km the Altitude is ~ 142Km
At ground range ~ 500Km the Altitude is ~ 243Km
At ground range ~ 1000Km the Altitude is ~ 448Km

Clearly these systems can target ICBM's only at the boost phase or in the terminal phase. My assertion was that given India's geographical location no existing ABM system launched from india could intercept a Russian Launch towards the US, simply because the ABM missile would fall short both on range and ceiling.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 00:14

Midcourse interceptors are still under development -
There was a test in 2002 where a target balloon was destroyed at a 225 Km altitude by the US. The other tests by the US don't mention target altitude anywhere it seems.

Are you suggesting a Joint US - India development: Cost-effective and Brilliant, Indian Scientific minds teaming up with US Moolah and US Brain for the realization of Mid Course interceptors?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2009 00:57

kidoman wrote:
Shivani wrote:Beyond the BrahMos failure
New Delhi January 30, 2009

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done itself little good by claiming success in its test-firing of the BrahMos missile, till the media exposed the bogus nature of the claim.

I just hate it.Why claim something which has not happened?
Whom r u trying to fool..Ur own people?
Seems the guys at DRDO have forgot to speak truth also.
Even if a failure happens after 20 odd successes, why hide it?
What a pity.

Did they hide it? If they did , you would have never known that the test failed. As someone commented in that page "BS is creating new bs (bullshit) everyday in defence reporting". The test wasnt all that a failure.[/quote]
______________________________________________________________________

DRDO forgot to speak the truth ? It is really getting funny. Few info/facts on this.

The way DRDO carry out these tests is somewhat different from other missile powers. While other nations spend more money on more test, we on the other hand try to compress the numbers and test only as few as possible. Main reason is that each missile like Brahmos is costly and the budget of DRDO is much less compared to what others spend on their research program. Another reason is that if you are very confident that the baby can run, it is waste to test and see whether the baby can crawl first, walk then and strong enough to run later; directly you can do the test of running.

On testing, if the missile reaches certain stage, it is considered to have attained certain percentage of stated goals. Same way, if it crosses certain stage without any noted aberration, it is considered as success. Even it is not hit the target it could be called as success. I think everyone must heard about CEP. It says if 50% of the missile fired hit the target of certain precision then the missile system is acceptable or in other words it is a success. IOW, of the 2 missile fired if one hit the target with the stated precision and other closer to that the missile is considered as success. In that sense, Brahmos is astounding success.

DRDO do lot of simulation at ground. During testing the flight of missile is continously monitored over many parameters at the same time. And with experience DRDO can identify the problem if there is any and modify them then and there. For any minor modification after all testing is over, the missile wont be tested once again seperately for this in developemental trials instead it will carried in user trials. Becoz, testing involves not only money but time and effort. The effort is not only on firing the missile, but goes towards conducting pre launch moves and post testing analysis which is time consuming and hectic. Becoz of minor modification or further improvements, the missile wont be considered not as successful one and tests wont be carried out continously.

Most important difference between DRDO and ISRO is one is involved in defence related development and other considered as civilian. There is lot of difference between the two. In defence, even if it is a success, if the Govt wants to play it down, it will be handled like that. What is considered as success in one arena may not be applicable to others as the norms for civil and defence varies.

It is better to leave the success/failure issue to DRDO/Service to settle; dont quibble over semantics.

nishug · Post by **nishug** » 31 Jan 2009 08:13

Beyond the BrahMos failure
DRDO has done itself little good by claiming success in Brahmos missile test-firing, till the media exposed it
Business Standard / New Delhi January 30, 2009, 0:34 IST

our politicians, media do not have any idea about a thing called morale of the people of the country

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jan 2009 10:00

it's not about morale, the BS editor is not educated enough to distinguish one end of the brahmos from another.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Jan 2009 10:44

Rahul M wrote

it's not about morale, the BS editor is not educated enough to distinguish one end of the brahmos from another.

Rahul, I think you are totally wrong, DDM knows exactly what they are writing about. After years of following the stuff which they have written, these guys are nothing but foreign agents trying to influence mass thinking in India. If foreign powers don't like DRDO. they are trying in thier own way to dismantle it.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 10:57

Oh come on everyone!!!
It was a minor glitch for godssake! And DRDO says there will BE ANOTHER TEST SOON - the problem is identified - when DRDO says that it follows through(eg the first A3 failure due to hot exhaust melting the cabling of the first stage nozzle and DRDO developing a unique collar).
The end user seems to be satisfied.
Why spend precious time discussing dhimmi DDM reporting standards?
DDM has NOT (repeat NOT) secured a coup by getting the DRDO to admit in the media that certain parameters were not met. This is not the same as some politician claiming something and the media uncovering something else.
This is something that DRDO and the end users of the product have to agree to.
WRT Development - that is an ongoing process - tomorrow some new seeker tech will come on the horizion then DRDO will want that incorporated into this and other systems too.

One interesting thing I've seen that I did not know earlier wrt the BRAHMOS:
India wanted to take the P-700 Granit as the basis for the BRAHMOS programme. Now this system looks exactly like the Yakhont but weighs 7 tonnes, has very similar dimensions and flies out to a range of >550Kms, and was designed to deliver a 500Kiloton warhead in Soviet service. Apparantly MTCR restrictions resulted in the Yakhont being chosen for the project.

Another tidbit is that the Yasen class of subs were designed to fire the Yakhont Cruise missile, there is also an unfinished yakhont hull at severodvinsk - incidentally the Yasen is beleived to be one of the designs that were considered for the ATV programme.

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jan 2009 11:12

One interesting thing I've seen that I did not know earlier wrt the BRAHMOS:
India wanted to take the P-700 Granit as the basis for the BRAHMOS programme. Now this system looks exactly like the Yakhont but weighs 7 tonnes, has very similar dimensions and flies out to a range of >550Kms, and was designed to deliver a 500Kiloton warhead in Soviet service. Apparantly MTCR restrictions resulted in the Yakhont being chosen for the project.

P-saggu ji,serious question:

Do you believe that the range of the Brahmos is actually 290 KM?

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 31 Jan 2009 15:47

Even though it was not directed to me , let me answer. Last week(24-26Jan09) IIT Bombay has Tech Fest;where some of the DRDO folks were there with UAV's, Bramhos launching vehicle. During the conversation i get to know that even though officially it is reiterated to be of 280-290 KM range only but it has range@310km

.

sum wrote:
One interesting thing I've seen that I did not know earlier wrt the BRAHMOS:
India wanted to take the P-700 Granit as the basis for the BRAHMOS programme. Now this system looks exactly like the Yakhont but weighs 7 tonnes, has very similar dimensions and flies out to a range of >550Kms, and was designed to deliver a 500Kiloton warhead in Soviet service. Apparantly MTCR restrictions resulted in the Yakhont being chosen for the project.
P-saggu ji,serious question:

Do you believe that the range of the Brahmos is actually 290 KM?

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 31 Jan 2009 16:33

some more info which i came to know from these DRDO folks:
1:-Navy (Rajpput class destroyers, at least 2 of it) has this missile!!

2: Regarding Su30's being upgraded with this missile he said 2010 would be optimistic time frame

3: Unit cost of a launching vehicle (army version) is @ 50 Crores

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 31 Jan 2009 17:06

Yogesh wrote:some more info which i came to know from these DRDO folks:
1:-Navy (Rajpput class destroyers, at least 2 of it) has this missile!!

why are surprised, everybody knows they have it.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Jan 2009 17:34

3: Unit cost of a launching vehicle (army version) is @ 50 Crores

Wow! is Bramhos really 12 times the cost of a Tomohawk- people here when talking about Purchasing power parity. It seems that India, things are much more expensive than the US. hmmm, or it to do with no mass production in India.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 31 Jan 2009 17:42

Second phase of BrahMos missile programme to be launched Feb 10.

Defence Minister A K Antony will launch the second phase of cruise missile maker Brahmos Aerospace's development programme here Feb 10, Kerala Industries Minister Elamaram Kareem said on Saturday.

He told reporters that the development programme included investment worth Rs 1.25 billion by BrahMos at their existing unit here.

"They (BrahMos) have requested eight acres of land adjacent to their existing unit, which is now occupied by the Southern Air Command. They have also asked us to provide another 50 acres of land for their next phase and we have already identified two places, both in the capital district itself," the minister said.

In the first phase, BrahMos had announced a total investment of Rs 1.25 billion at the existing campus of state public sector unit Keltec, which it had taken over December 2007.

Of this, Rs 750 million was invested by the BrahMos organisation while the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were to contribute Rs 250 million each.

Named after the Brahmaputra and Moskova rivers, the missile is capable of being launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or from land. It is about three times faster than the US subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile and has the capability to attack surface targets as low as 10m in altitude and has a maximum range of 290 km.

The missile programme is a joint venture between India's DRDO and Russia's NPO Mashinostroeyenia who have together formed the BrahMos Corp. Currently, the assembly of the state-of-the-art missile takes place at the BrahMos unit in Hyderabad.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 17:47

Yogesh wrote:it has range@310km

They pulled a fast one on you!
Nuff said. Missile ranges in india is completely hush hush - NEVER discuss it on an open forum even it you happen to have some groundbreaking info.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 17:48

I don't like the BRAHMOS factory site. It is completely within reach of a Paki Sub or a terrorist with a rowing boat.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 31 Jan 2009 18:15

Aditya_V wrote:
3: Unit cost of a launching vehicle (army version) is @ 50 Crores
Wow! is Bramhos really 12 times the cost of a Tomohawk- people here when talking about Purchasing power parity. It seems that India, things are much more expensive than the US. hmmm, or it to do with no mass production in India.

he said its the launch vehicle, not the missile or probably he is talking about a complete battery costs . even the A-III wouldn't cost 50 crores.

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jan 2009 18:26

p_saggu wrote:
Yogesh wrote:it has range@310km
They pulled a fast one on you!
Nuff said. Missile ranges in india is completely hush hush - NEVER discuss it on an open forum even it you happen to have some groundbreaking info.

Yup...no point discussing missile ranges with DRDO-wallahs.

They might even confide that the A-III range is not the stated 3500 but 3700 K.M while the BRFites have a idea of the ACTUAL figures.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 18:30

sum wrote:Yup...no point discussing missile ranges with DRDO-wallahs.

They might even confide that the A-III range is not the stated 3500 but 3700 K.M while the BRFites have a idea of the ACTUAL figures.

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 31 Jan 2009 20:56

ajay_ijn wrote:
3: Unit cost of a launching vehicle (army version) is @ 50 Crores
he said its the launch vehicle, not the missile or probably he is talking about a complete battery costs . even the A-III wouldn't cost 50 crores.

Exactly it's cost for the vehicle which carries 3 missiles + other equipment required for launching the missiles and obviously cost of the vehicle which carries it(this vehicle 2 is currently imported from Czec republic

even we can't make vehicle to carry missiles ! after listening to this question DRDO fellaw said with a little embarrassment; work is on with TATA's to deliver this sort of vehicle soon (he din't knew how soon neither i

)

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 31 Jan 2009 21:04

p_saggu wrote:
sum wrote:Yup...no point discussing missile ranges with DRDO-wallahs.

They might even confide that the A-III range is not the stated 3500 but 3700 K.M while the BRFites have a idea of the ACTUAL figures.

Hmm with all due respect to The Gurus but i can not find any reason why they would bully us (mostly student were at the fest no experts!, i would rather say like other common curious man of Desh; who all have very good image of defense establishments)

any ways as mentioned above not a big deal to discus this range thing over here ..

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Feb 2009 00:10

p_saggu wrote:Arun_S,
I am not of an engineering background, but on searching the net this is what I understand.

1. what is the altitude ICBM traverse?
This from Wiki ICBM page:
* boost phase — 3 to 5 minutes (shorter for a solid rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 7 km/s.
* midcourse phase — approx. 25 minutes — sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic orbit; the orbit is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km; the semi-major axis is between 3,186 km and 6,372 km; the projection of the orbit on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads, and penetration aids such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
* reentry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km) — 2 minutes — impact is at a speed of up to 4 km/s (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.

2. What is the altitude mid course interceptors handle targets?
These are the various ABM Systems with Ranges and Altitude ceilings.
1. PAC-3 : 160 Km - 25 Km
2. Arrow: 90 Km - 50 Km
3. S-300V: 120Km - 25Km.
4.S-300PMU: 195Km - ?40Km
5. S-400: 400Km - ??
6. SM-3 : > 500Km - >250Km

On Rockism,
For the Topol
At ground range ~ 250Km the Altitude is ~ 142Km
At ground range ~ 500Km the Altitude is ~ 243Km
At ground range ~ 1000Km the Altitude is ~ 448Km

Clearly these systems can target ICBM's only at the boost phase or in the terminal phase. My assertion was that given India's geographical location no existing ABM system launched from india could intercept a Russian Launch towards the US, simply because the ABM missile would fall short both on range and ceiling.

p_saggu: Thanks for responding with data. Notice on Rocksim that that for Russia to launch attack via south polar attack the required ICBM range is in excess of 30,000 km and the most optimal trajectory is at much lower altitude than 1,200Km.

Also note that mid course intercept at 448Km or even 1,200Km altitude is in easy reach of configuration like sounding rockets (Wiki link). Further since the missile is already in mid course the reaction time is plentiful and aiming/homing problem is much simpler (compared to AAD or PAD). Not only that such ABM missile configuration have very large (ground) range coverage; thus such ABM bases can be spaced at greater distance to ring and block overflight of ICBM.

Compare sounding rocket mentioned in Wiki Black Brant X and XII, with older ISRO's sounding rockets at
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rh.htm
In particular look at apogees of launches for ionospheric studies. The retired RH-560 series has some oomph, and it is not even maraging case motor much less composite case motor that one will use for ABM missiles. Now compare the shape and size of AAD composite motor with the retried RH-560 series and one can see where the performance is going.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 01 Feb 2009 01:05

don't mind me butting in, RH-560 is supposed to be used as a test launcher for ISRO's scram jet program, will it be 'modernized'? now that it is also a potential mid-course interceptor?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 01 Feb 2009 01:22

Why bother with a sounding rocket?
Just use a Two staged Agni 1 based system. this will do for midcourse ABM interception as well as give ASAT capability.

Arun-ji,
Thanks for your reply, as always precise and detailed both at the same time...

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 01 Feb 2009 01:34

The RIM-161 SM-3 for comparision.

Length 6.55 m (21 ft 6 in)
Diameter 0.34 m (13.5 in)
Wingspan 1.57 m (62 in)

Warhead Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic warhead

Propellant
Stage1: MK 72 Booster, solid-fuel, Aerojet
Stage2: MK 104 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM), solid-fuel, Aerojet
Stage3: MK 136 Third Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM), solid-fuel, ATK
Stage4: Solid Divert and Attitude Control System (SDACS), ATK

Operational range: >500 km (270 nautical miles)
Flight ceiling: >250 km (150 miles)

Guidancesystem
GPS/INS/semi-active radar homing/passive LWIR seeker (KW)

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 01 Feb 2009 02:37

p_saggu wrote:Why bother with a sounding rocket?
Just use a Two staged Agni 1 based system. this will do for midcourse ABM interception as well as give ASAT capability.

err... Cost Asymmetry -> enemy's cost of fielding target ICBMs, IRBMs vs. our cost of interceptors for 99.9 kill rate

for the latter,

1) increasing the size of the protective bubble
2) reducing the cost of expendables

if economy scale is 10 (TSP) ... 100 (India) ... 1000 (China), our ABM layers have to follow a similar cost asymmetry curve without getting sucked up in a overt arms race.

Even today, we are worried about confronting TSP not just because their nukes we are factoring in the effect on our economy too

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 01 Feb 2009 08:37

Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to Brahmos missile

New Delhi: The recent failure of the 290-km-range Brahmos missile to hit a pre-defined target and the high over-run in its production cost has put a question mark over fresh orders for 240 of these missiles from the Indian Army.

Though an RFP (Request For Proposal) for equipping two regiments with this missile was placed with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) mid-January, it’s learnt that Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has indicated he would not opt for its purchase unless the missile proved its capability and was available at a reasonable price

The Army, sources said, is bound by directions of the Defence Acquisition Council which, at the time of placing the first purchase order for 66 missiles in 2006, had said that subsequent regiments would have to be armed with SCAN or “multi-spectral seeker” — a system that provides a video feed to the missile control centre to ensure precision in guidance.

A demonstration to the Army of Brahmos hitting a specific target failed on January 20. The DRDO first claimed success but had to backtrack when General Kapoor insisted on visiting the target site and found that the missile had overshot by a kilometre.

The next test is scheduled for February 10.

Incidentally, a test fire using a vertical launch instead of the usual inclined position from battleship INS Ranvir on January 15 also missed its target, DRDO sources said.

Err..the Navy test had also failed?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 01 Feb 2009 08:42

[quote="sunilUpa"]Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to Brahmos missile

by Amitav Ranjan.

From the group of AR and RP.

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 01 Feb 2009 09:38

lack of precision and higher costs are making the weapon only display item.
It is more of a use to porki showbiz force than a true fighting one.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 01 Feb 2009 10:19

This article from Idiot Express is typical of the way Idiot Express has been running campaign against the DRDO - bloody DDM at it's best. Consider how the author has twisted information to suit his point of view:
First the title itself:

Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to Brahmos missile

and then
this:

it’s learnt that Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has indicated he would not opt for its purchase unless the missile proved its capability and was available at a reasonable price

Can you see the sys ops? Army has not said no - they are simply saying what any sensible customer would say: Meet the requirements and we will accept the product - as simple as that! But Idiot Express would like to say as if the sky has fallen....

he DRDO first claimed success but had to backtrack when General Kapoor insisted on visiting the target site and found that the missile had overshot by a kilometre.

Again lies... DRDO had "claimed" failure the very next day - and that's normal because it would have taken them a few hours to figure out the results but DDM would obviously like to see some sort of conspiracy in it.

From this link

The BrahMos Missile was successfully launched on 8th December, 2008 from a Naval Warship in the Bay of Bengal.

- what Jan 15 launch is he talking about quoting "DRDO Sources"??

IMHO Amitav Ranjan is also on the lines of Rajat Pandit.... classic DDM.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 01 Feb 2009 12:27

p_saggu wrote:I don't like the BRAHMOS factory site. It is completely within reach of a Paki Sub or a terrorist with a rowing boat.

Pray, Sir, the reason? In which case, strategic coastal defence assets like Vizag (ATV assembly), Trombay, Karwar, Ezhimala, Kochi, Goa, Hazira (L&T naval fab as also its newly proposed naval shipyard in Chennai) are all potential targets to the above threat. In fact, being in Bengaluru or Hyderabad, does the threat get lessened by any chance? In fact, Paki long range missiles can already reach Deccan plateau (Ghauri ii- 2300 kms and Shaheen ii- 2500 kms). Which other 'safe' sites did you have in mind?

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 01 Feb 2009 16:49

Here isa more sober/factually correct version of the Brahmos news from PTI. Key points:

Army would want DRDO to prove the capabilities of the missile before we move the proposal to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for purchasing of missiles from them," Army sources said here.

DRDO on its part promised to prove the capabilities of the block II version of the Indo-Russian joint venture missile in next trials.

They said the company would be able to start deliveries of the 240 missiles order from the Army in two years from now as per the original schedule.

n reports of around three-fold increase in cost of the missiles, they said, "There is a clause in the contract with the Russians, which caters for 10-15 per cent increase in the price of the missile every year but it certainly is not three-fold."

Contrast this with the drivel that Amitav Ranjan had written in the above article

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2009 16:57

Saumitra sir , welcome back ...... AR & RP seems well funded

Any idea about this SCAN or “multi-spectral seeker” being developed for this block II Brahmos ?

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 01 Feb 2009 17:20

now even brahmos which is a better made yakhont is not suitable to army which prefers t90 over arjun and any other european tank
what is the problem between drdo and the army
was drdo faking details about brahmos in media??

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 01 Feb 2009 17:31

Thanks Austin - sorry don't have much to say about this new multi spectral seeker with video link etc.

Namit: Just relax, Brahmos is NOT going the Arjun way - please see the above posts on how DDM (especially the Idiot Express altjoigh TOI let is no better) is twisting facts....

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 01 Feb 2009 17:34

namit k wrote:now even brahmos which is a better made yakhont is not suitable to army which prefers t90 over arjun and any other european tank
what is the problem between drdo and the army
was drdo faking details about brahmos in media??

lets see, one single failure doesn't change the whole program. Navy has accepted the missile. LACM is definitely more challenging than Anti-Ship especially with the requirement of pin point accuracy in presence of decoys etc.

i am guessing this isn't the first test of Brahmos with terminal spectral seeker so that means previous development trials of Block II have been Successful.