Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 01:01

Please look at the Pioneer, Deccan Herald and TOI articles I posted on page 33 of this thread. This is not insurmountable and does not constitute a total loss.

Moreover, Agni-2 had problems on May 19 and one month later in a very poorly publicised test was tested again (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market ... in-a-month).

This is only its 2nd problematic test. It had a trouble free development which leads to a possibility that this failure could have been an error on the part of the user.

somak · Post by **somak** » 24 Nov 2009 02:54

BTW what's the significance of a night launch? electronics/communications are not supposed to depend on ambient light I believe unless it's 'solar powered' of course. Does A-2 has a stellar inertial navigation which might malfunction at night? I personally would prefer night time to gaze the stars though

Krishna_V · Post by **Krishna_V** » 24 Nov 2009 02:57

somehow i get the feeling these tests are just not user trials. DRDO must be working on something under the name Agni II. A missile which is already operational and its next version is already out in the form of Agin III failed twice in the past few months..

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 03:03

Sanjay,

Could you confirm independent of the odd report in open source that one month after the May 19 test, A II was tested again ?

This time even Hemant Rout types are not indicating failure like "180 degree turn" etc...

Also, why is a night test more difficult than an ordinary one ? After all a rocket should have no extra difficlty flying at night....

As for China, even their DF-21 series, let alone DF-31 had to go through teething difficulties. The DF-21 started testing in 1985. Even as of 1999, they had to purloin information from U.S customers to take steps, maybe quality control, to perfect the DF-21. Of course, lessons learnt were used for later missiles.

Regarding comments like "Perfect Agni II before Agni III" etc, they are naive. The only lesson here is that given our manufacturing capabilities, repeated testing of all types is necessary especially after serial production begins. Agni III testing should be independent of Agni II testing. They are two completely different designs. Had the "perfect ASLV before trying PSLV" motto been followed, we would have had neither. Agni III and sucessors should be the core of our deterrent. The L/D=20 of Agni II is itself something that negatively affects robustness. I remember seeing an issue in Defence Science Journal many yrs ago where a detailed paper was written on long range missiles with L/D > 20. Goes to show that that by itself is a nontrivial issue.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 03:31

Ramdas - yes I did but as I say I can't understand why it was not publicised more.

As far as the night launch goes - it isn't the missile, its the launch crew. Their task will be more difficult at night in terms of preparing the launcher.

Just as a point of interest, does anyone have the parameter objectives of each and every NK, PRC or IRP test ? I think we might be quite surprised as to how many partial successes they had. After all, they do not give a lot of detail as to their missile tests.

Krishna_V, it is very possible as there are rumours of a new guidance system being tested for dramatically enhanced accuracy. Don't know if it's true.

astal · Post by **astal** » 24 Nov 2009 04:27

Re. Agni test
It is likely the test failed given the fact that we have not seen the words "Textbook Launch" and "All objectives achieved". If the test has indeed failed, it would be extremely unsettling as it renders India's deterrence questionable against China.

But there are many factors involved that could possibly have caused the failure and it will be interesting to hear the actual cause, given the openness with which earlier failures have been analyzed.

Some possibilities are.

1) Human error during configuration and launch.
2) Manufacturing defects when building or integrating the parts.
3) If the missile was from Army stock, components could degrade due to storage or temporally.
3) Design failure.

Overall, as long as the pertinent lessons are learned, even if the test failed, the fact that they are continuously testing is good news. I state the obvious when I say that failure while testing may be acceptable, failure in an actual war situation is not an option.

These persistent failures perhaps indicate, that we need a more robust testing program. Could guru's in the field weigh in on what that would constitute. My (uninformed) speculation is that it needs to consist of the following:

1. At the very least we must have 5 back to back successful tests to declare a missile operational.
2. A continuous user test program where every batch is tested randomly from stock.

3. Subjecting missiles to the rigours of time, weather and transportation.

Just as the army demanded and got from Brahmos, a string of failures should lead to major improvements in the long term. It may also create a sense of urgency for later missiles in the Agni series, Shourya and Nirbhay.

(edited for clarity)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 05:51

Must have failures in peacetime. Unlike an aircraft we have lost no people. It will be tested again. It has to be. No other go.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 24 Nov 2009 06:13

What so significant about a night test? And what could be the reason for the failure?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 07:12

krishnan wrote:What so significant about a night test? And what could be the reason for the failure?

As far as I can recall offhand, failures have typically centered around software glitches, guidance system problems, stage separation problems and sometimes problems with engine thrust. And recently the problem of inadequate yield for 2000 km range has been added to that

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2009 07:56

TOI reports quoting unnamed 'sources' that missile started behaving erratically after 1st stage separation. the 1st stage apparently did its job.

so its like a dog with 3 legs onlee

scrap DRDO! order Shaheen-mki from Pak!!

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 07:59

Just my thought that this sounds like guidance trouble. It has been suggested a new guidance system is being tested on the Agni-2. This could be the cause of a lot of trouble.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Nov 2009 08:14

Singha wrote:TOI reports quoting unnamed 'sources' that missile started behaving erratically after 1st stage separation. the 1st stage apparently did its job.

so its like a dog with 3 legs onlee scrap DRDO! order Shaheen-mki from Pak!!

Without trojan software please. make SURE that is in the contract and do not sign any EUA - AT ALL. Nada. Seriously.

which DRDO? The retired group?

Ouch.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 08:19

kittoo wrote:WTH? If we cant even perfect A2, can we even dream about integrating ICBMs???????

WTH ? we couldn't even achieve a single fully successful launch of the ASLV but we have had what 16 in a row successful PSLV launches ?????!!!!!!!

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 08:22

we did achieve one - 1994. Everyone seems to forget the 2 successful development trials in 1999 and 2001 as well as the user/development trial held in 2004. Something more than a basic Agni-2 may be at work here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Nov 2009 08:37

This "failure" only means that what they were testing did not test out (very well?). For sure the older A2 is reliable enough. And, if every test were to be a success then testing itself may not have the meaning it should have. A complacency could enter the equation.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Nov 2009 08:42

I have mixed feelings about this, more so because Agni-2 is the only long range strategic weapon that India has until Agni-3 joins the force. Apart from this the test was done from the stocked ones, indicating maintenance issues or the question of maintainablity of the Agni-2 stocks. As far as I know the Agni-1 user trials were successfull. Only Agni-2 has the issue.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 30274.html

Although officially India denies that Agni 1 and 2 are derivatives of SLV-3 / ASLV, the fact remains that. We have around 5 failures for the 8 launches of SLV-3/ASLV combined.

Both the above points, Agni-1 user trial success and SLV-3/ASLV failures point that the basic design of these vehicles dont allow a second stage and other higher stages. Hopefully this is the issue.

Otherwise if the issue is related to maintenence we may be in trouble for Agni 3 also.

PSLV is a sturdy vehicle like Agni-3 or the other way round but again we havent tested, say a 2 year old PSLV!!

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 24 Nov 2009 08:55

Its more likely be a Agni-2AT testing in progress.Its just that GOI dont want to raise noise levels during MMS visit to US while in the process of sealing a deal on dual use technologies?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Nov 2009 09:27

Would calibration of the launch site be an issue?
The army is used to calibrating its own location accurately, it routinely calibrates its artillery positions vis-a-vis the enemy to direct accurate fire.

But I was reading about the Akash missile system and one of the requirements of its radars was that they be perfectly balanced and calibrated wrt the N pole or there would be errors in tracking and targeting.

I wonder if the same applies to missiles that are going to fly 2000+ Kms.

If there is a fault with stage separation, that is DRDO's area or the manufacturing issue. If somehow the armed forces are being blamed, it would seem that some operator errors crept in resulting in the missile not meeting designed goals.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Nov 2009 09:33

symontk wrote:Although officially India denies that Agni 1 and 2 are derivatives of SLV-3 / ASLV, the fact remains that.

I would say that this is not true any more.
The current agnis retain the outward shape of the liquid fueled Agni-TD which was a derivative of SLV tech. But calling the Solid fueled Agni-2 to be a derivative of that same tech is using too wide a brush.

The guidance systems are at least a generation more modern, the engines are solid fueled. These things have the HAM and targetable re-entry vehicle.

Significant enough to not use the derivative word.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 24 Nov 2009 10:21

jaladipc wrote:Its more likely be a Agni-2AT testing in progress.Its just that GOI dont want to raise noise levels during MMS visit to US while in the process of sealing a deal on dual use technologies?

If GOI was so concerned why even test it now?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 24 Nov 2009 10:33

shiv wrote:Must have failures in peacetime. Unlike an aircraft we have lost no people. It will be tested again. It has to be. No other go.

and many more times at that , not only to satisfy the Army that the missile is indeed capable enough to be put to use in case of contingency but also to make a point to our potential enemies who may well take us lightly is we do not prove otherwise.

Looking forward to many more succesful Agni - 2 tests in the future.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 24 Nov 2009 10:45

One of the more reliable source - DD News.

http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Homepage/Home ... +RATES.htm

"It was a smooth launch. Data relating to various parameters of the missions' objectives are being analysed," said a defence official who witnessed the test launch.

Note that this is said by a defense official not by DRDO which means it was actually a smooth launch and the result is yet to come.

On the significance of conducting night trial, a DRDO scientist said since it is a training exercise for the end-users, one should be familiar with the operation in extreme conditions.

The first trial of Agni-II was on 11th April 1999 and the last test was conducted on 19th May 2009 from the Wheeler Island, which was not "fully successful".

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Nov 2009 10:50

symontk wrote:Although officially India denies that Agni 1 and 2 are derivatives of SLV-3 / ASLV, the fact remains that. We have around 5 failures for the 8 launches of SLV-3/ASLV combined.

Yes all are derivates of SLV-3. A nose cone in the front and a hole in the back from where hot gases emanate. Even the boosters of Space Shuttle are derived from SLV-3.

Both the above points, Agni-1 user trial success and SLV-3/ASLV failures point that the basic design of these vehicles dont allow a second stage and other higher stages. Hopefully this is the issue.

Otherwise if the issue is related to maintenence we may be in trouble for Agni 3 also.

PSLV is a sturdy vehicle like Agni-3 or the other way round but again we havent tested, say a 2 year old PSLV!!

This is most hilarious, you mean to say that the rockets need to be SDRE and not TFTA? :ROFL:

On a serious note, rocket systems for satellite launch and ballistic missiles are different. They share the same basic science but are not the same. Their flight regimes are also different. For eg. a polar satellite launch from SHAR has to perform dog leg maneouvres but that is not the case for ballistic missile launches. Though they have varying trajectories which might take them to variable atmosphere densities. Also the launch parameters are different, for ballistic missile launches, it is several order tougher.

In the absence of sufficient information., there can be only speculations. Was it that the guidance system failed to issue commands for stage separation or the stage separation caused errorsin guidance?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Nov 2009 11:02

"Not fully successful".Why can't we simply admit that the test failed! The Russians have done so over several Bulava test failures-and sacked their top man too! If Agony-2 has failed all three tests,then a complete revision is required.The point about PSLV is moot.Why is there so little apparent interaction between the two agencies?This was a point brought out by an analyst,as all major N-powers used their civilian programmes to perfect their military ones.It is absolutely imperative that we develop an ICBM too,perhaps that programme needs to be accelerated and then Agony-2 can be put to rest,unless it is essential to deal with China.An ICBM that can be carried by our ATV/improved ATV class of SSBNs is the need of the hour.The same missile can then be used for the land based forces too,as the naval version will have to be be more robust.Instead of developing several derivatives of one missile-Agni,we should concentrate upon achieving a reliable ICBM design that can deliver a warhead from land or sea at a considerable range,at least 5000km.

There are also other alternatives to SSBns in the interesting article in the Intl.Navies thread posted by Igorr,worth a read.The author proposes larger numbers of AIP subs armed with shorter range missiles that can be stationed closer to the enemy's coastline,as these subs are far quieter and very difficult to detect (US experience with Sweden's Gotland AIP),apart from being far cheaper.Israel's seems to have adopted this strategy with their Dolphin class German SSGs,which have larger tubes for the presumed Israeli LR cruise missile that is nuclear capable.In the Indian context too,there is an urgent need for at least 36+ subs,both nuclear and conventional/AIP to meeet the challenge from both China and Pak.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Nov 2009 12:38

NRao wrote:This "failure" only means that what they were testing did not test out (very well?). For sure the older A2 is reliable enough. And, if every test were to be a success then testing itself may not have the meaning it should have. A complacency could enter the equation.

This argument sounds hollow. How do you know for "sure that A2 is reliable enough" ??

Its best to accept it- Failure. Failure is also part of progress and there is nothing wrong in admitting failure. We just have to have the courage to do so. Its funny that every success or failure of DRDO makes people believe that it reflects on them personally as well. It does not.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 24 Nov 2009 13:13

There has always been a question mark on A-2.
Why the h*** they can't test it in private.
This is a very stupid (if not dangerous) time to reveal our weakness.
Let's hope they come up with a decent final report, I would not mind lying in the interest of the country.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2009 13:38

its my belief A2 is intended as a interim weapon until A3 can be fully tested and productionised. it range is overkill vs Pak and underkill vs PRC. it doesnt sit in the desired sweet spot of payload x range x adversary.

but in any case, since A3 deployment is some years away, the A2AT is necessary for our deterrence to sustain itself as gap filler and testbed for infra like rail mobile TEL and guidance systems.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Nov 2009 14:19

This is most hilarious, you mean to say that the rockets need to be SDRE and not TFTA? :ROFL:

Actually I meant the opposite. Fatter the better, but keep decent height

. Also you can put them easily into submarines. (But if it is too fat, you need advance solid stage design)

SLV-3 components was reused for several applications, few of them are Agni-1/Agni-2. There is nothing wrong in claiming that SLV-3 was resued for Agni. There is no other danger that is going to happen if India claims that. (Already VSSC was/is sanctioned by US for SLV-3/ASLV/PSLV/GSLV development). Actually the ISRO's success stories comes from this reuse only

India is not a rich country to develop rocket/launch vehicle stages at will. Remember that SLV-3 development started around 1970 and completed only by 1979. Same for other stages/engines. Most of the systems/products that you see are reused ones due to this aspect (economic)

Hey we even reused Prithvi missle for missle defence, how about that? Even prithvi engines are supposed to derived from SA-2 experience from whatever I have learned

Regarding the failure (if it is one, i saw another report saying they are waiting for results), it is better to fast track Agni-3 rather than flogging Agni-2

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Nov 2009 14:21

current agnis retain the outward shape of the liquid fueled Agni-TD which was a derivative of SLV tech. But calling the Solid fueled Agni-2 to be a derivative of that same tech is using too wide a brush.

Only the second stage of Agni-2 is liquid fuelled. First stage is solid fuelled.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Nov 2009 14:41

The capability of DRDO in the aspect of missile technology is in serious doubt after these failure. They should have done these and any other things which are part and parcel of successful commissioning of the missile much earlier. These leaves us with only 3 worthwhile missiles 1) Prithvi and 2) Agni-I and 3) Brahmos. Earlier, I thought that misgivings by Army on DRDO capability and quality were unnecessary but now I have started feeling that Army may be right for its concern about DRDO technology. It is better that DRDO develops a stable and accurate missile first than to boast about development of Star war technology.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 14:47

ashish, we know next to nothing about why this mission failed or even IF it was a failure.
for all we know it could have been an error on the part of the SFC crew or even a maintenance failure due to umpteen reasons.
could we PLEASE get a grip on these passing judgement thingy till the scenario becomes clearer ?

at the moment these are little more than empty theorising based on unknown facts.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Nov 2009 14:49

^^, do you actually believe that crew can be responsible for a missile which is failed in 2nd stage fired by the people who might have done this job numerous times in the past !!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 14:52

how many user trials of the A-2 have the SFC conducted that the crew may have done this numerous times in the past ? really want to know.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 24 Nov 2009 15:39

Rahul M.. while the crew may not have fired the actual missile many times but the drill would have been practiced n raised to n times as part of the ongoing training.... though i agree with you that we need to know more to really understand the implications/reasons for the 'failure' .

I think as a safety measure, all missile launches of inducted systems should be termed as eg Agni2X ( eXperimental) ...indicating that some new feature is being tested ( even if it is not !!). this way some measure of obfuscation / smoke screen can be achieved.... I mean truly if an inducted system failed then it calls for heads to roll.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 15:41

manjgu, that's all I'm saying, we need to know much more before we can start shouting "off with his head", if ever.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 15:43

Rahul there have been 2 previous user tests - May 19 and June 19. One was successful.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 15:44

sanjay ji, thanks for confirming my foggy memory.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 16:04

Reason why is that we don't reverse engineer and the forces want state of the art equipment from day one.

Back to Agni:

From today's PTI:

"Though the top brass of the Integrated Test Range (ITR) were tight-lipped about the outcome of the trial, a source said that at the time of the second stage separation, the missile appeared to have deviated from its coordinated path".

This seems to me to be indicative of a guidance problem. Combine this with Rout's report from May and we have the possibility of a new guidance system being tested. If so, this could explain a lot.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 24 Nov 2009 16:19

I find this a kind of strange. India manages far more advanced tech like PSLV and GSLV. Agni II sould have been a relatively easy task.
Another strage aspect is the timing. Why on earth would they want to test a nuclear capable missile just when MMS is off to USA. And why would they declare "did not meet ALL parameters", without giving any further information? ¨
Would a sucessfull test of AGNI II, have been a good development for MMS, in the US?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Nov 2009 16:29

Operator faults are possible but rare , although these tests are conducted by SFC but under the guidance of DRDO scientist , and these systems have built in checks to eliminate end user errors , so crew fault is possible but will be last on the last.

A second stage problem may indicate a improper stage separation issue or guidance problem