Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 24 Nov 2009 16:53

A query ?

Is this failure particular to night, i mean does it have to do with because it was night. so some device which was supposed to provide guidance during night malfunctioned. or if we would have fired same missile in day it would still have failed.

A-3 too failed in second stage IIRC.

and i agree with rahul that let the data come first we don't even know what is so called failure . certainly it was not like a A-3 bursting in mid air.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 17:01

Rishirishi wrote: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.

The news said it was off a rail launcher. So it may have done some sightseeing and such tests will tell the effects of tourism.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Nov 2009 17:19

Rahul M wrote: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.

I know it is tested atleast 5 times in last 10 years ! Even during user trials DRDO technical experts are around to monitor everything from word go. Besides simulations and drills may have been done 10X times. I am highly doubtful that human error can actually be held responsible for malfunction of a highly automated system. Apart from it to criticize a failure(of a system which is deemed successful development) is result of a investigative tendency and not something to be afraid of. Every successful development had to go through this and even worse mockery before they were hailed as a success ! DRDO is not an exception.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 17:55

Weird news - need someone to explain it to me

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/drdo-admits- ... ml?from=tn

DRDO admits N-capable Agni-II failed night testing
Even though the missile took-off smoothly and reported no glitch in the first stage separation, the missile appeared to have failed to meet the desired results mid-way at the second stage separation, DRDO sources said.

Huh?

A two stage missile has a second stage separation? Does that indicate a coasting phase of warhead after chucking the 2nd stage?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 24 Nov 2009 18:19

After this article it is clear that Agni-II has a problem with second stage.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article53977.ece

The 2,000 km range Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) fired from a mobile platform at 7.55 pm from Wheeler Island, off the Orissa Coast, tumbled into the sea after the first stage. The operation was carried out by the personnel of the Strategic Forces Command of the Army as part conducting user trials.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) sources told The Hindu that some malfunction occurred after 60 seconds when the missile reached up to an altitude of 20 kms following which it nosedived. The fact that the first stage, a replica of the SLV-3 (first stage), functioned well showed it was robust. “Something went wrong after the first stage”, the sources added.

A few seconds of malfunctioning, probably in the control system, had affected the normal thrust and resulted in the missile losing its speed. The snag resulted in the high dynamic vehicle becoming uncontrollable subsequently. The problem might have occurred either during separation or ignition of the second stage.

DRDO constituted a special team to analyse the cause of failure. It might take at least 10 days to pinpoint the actual cause and come to a definite conclusion.

This is setback to DRDO as two flights of Agni-II failed in a row. The missile launched in May this year ended up without reaching the full distance after facing a similar problem during the second stage.

The two-stage solid fuelled Agni-II is 21-metres tall and has a thrust phase of 110 seconds. It is capable of carrying a payload of one tonne to a distance of 2,000 km. The weapon system had already been deployed and Monday’s one was picked randomly from a clutch of missiles.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 18:47

It could be a BDL problem or a recurrence of the 1992 problem.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 18:57

It is shocking that Agni II itself is so unreliable. How did they fail to detect these problems , especially after they occurred before ? It is a huge shame that even pakistan is ahead of us as far as ballistic missiles are concerned. It is important to make sure that peaceniks do not use this chance to argue for scuttling such efforts altogether.

BTW Sanjay, the Hindu clearly says that two tests failed in a row. Probably the June 19 test did not occur.

There is a long way to go for a credible deterrent to be achieved. Probably makes sense not to invest too much effort in A II, (AIII seems to have a better record for now) but to puch A III development and testing as fast as possible. Any sequentialization "AII before AIII" type would be disastrous.

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

-- Self Deleted --

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 19:25

people please take the DRDO bashing and advices to the desi R&D thread. as some people were saying, we may not have enough information ever. In that case we are in no position to pass judgement are we ?

uninformed speculations tend to do more harm than good and we are better off avoiding those.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Nov 2009 19:37

The black colored heat shield + warhead section does have a HAM inside. Since it is maneuverable while in re-entry, it would separate from the second stage too.
Now weather it separates with the 2nd stage following it just like the Chinese M-9 series does, is not known. Recall that in the chinese M-9 missile series the second stage follows the warhead a few meters behind it. Because the 2nd stage is 10-20x bigger than the warhead, it presents a more jucier target to an anti missile system which just goes by radar signature.

The self protection systems on the Agni series are completely unknown to us, although there has been mention of decoys being used. I would assume these refer to physical and electronic decoys, jamming etc. What we don't know is what kind of maneuvers the warhead section can do, those fins are quite big and with a HAM is it capable of significant zig-zag during reentry or just before re-entry?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Nov 2009 19:45

From Telugu news papers -
Eenadu says that the test was successful.
Andhrajyothy and Sakshi doesn't talk about the test results.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Nov 2009 19:55

I am not too concerned about news about the Agni-2's failure.
Either it is a quality control issue which means it will be soon rectified, or it means that something's afoot, which means good things only.
DRDO is a good enough organization.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 20:01

Ramdas, as I say that June 19 one was curiously understated. Pakistan is not ahead of India in ballistic missiles in any way.

Why is Agni-2 giving trouble now ? Guidance probs or QC. That's all. Guidance would be due to some new things up.

The DRDL produced examples are probably fine but the BDL ones are at issue.

RamaY - can you share anything with us on what was said in the Telegu papers ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 20:29

ramdas wrote:It is shocking that Agni II itself is so unreliable. How did they fail to detect these problems , especially after they occurred before ? It is a huge shame that even pakistan is ahead of us as far as ballistic missiles are concerned. It is important to make sure that peaceniks do not use this chance to argue for scuttling such efforts altogether.

Ramdas - your views would be both more scientific AND credible if you could make a list of any 5 ballistic missiles designed in any country and make a list of the first ten tests of each missile and see how many failed and how many worked.

If you can demonstrate that most countries have had a better success rate than India with Agni 2 then you would have a point (for the figure 10 tests). You will find that the real problem is finding news of the first ten tests of any missile in any other country. In the absence of that information you are comparing India with itself to reach a conclusion.

If I may be allowed to go below the belt for a bit - imagine a man who gets married and in his one week honeymoon he fails to achieve penetration in the first four days. He then laments that he is useless and that his success rate is 3 in 7 and his failure rate is 4/7 and that he is among the worst sexual performers in the world. He is comparing himself with himself.

But his conclusion cannot be right unless you make a comparison with the performance of maybe 10 other couples (of similar sexual experience) their first 7 days. If he did that he may find two couples who got it right 7/7 and maybe one couple who got it wrong on all 7 days. Check Japan's performance in satellite launches. Check the serviceability rate of (proven) Russian air to air missiles in the IAF inventory reported a couple of weeks ago.

And relax and have a Charminar. People on the job will get things right. And even if they don't - fretting will not help. Please..

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 20:37

Sanjay,

Then it is strange that The Hindu says two unsuccessful in a row. T. S. Subramanian is usually reliable.
Technologically, pak is not ahead: they have no equivalent of Agni III.

Operationally, they have Shaheen II which is Agni II class (maybe somewhat larger). It has had 5 successful tests without these embarassing issues. It seems to be fully operational.

The trouble free development says that the design may be OK even if not fully rugged (due to its civilian ancestry). However, the production models have gone 0/2 or 1/3 upto this point depending on whether the Jun 19 test didnt happen or happened. This means quality control is probably a serious issue.

Again, why has the same failure repeated itself ? They should have been able to fix it the first time itself. Or were they unable to pinpoint the problem in May and needed more tests just to pinpoint the problem ?

The moral of this story seems to be that regular testing (at least 2-3 / year) of each type of Agni missile would be required throughout their operational life. In other words, credible national power can only be attained by "tapasya".

I hope that A III development and testing is not slowed down because of these A II setbacks...after all , had they waited for ASLV to be perfected before they went for PSLV, PSLV would never have happened.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 20:41

Ramdas, the Shaheen tests were never given the scrutiny ours were - not that I doubt their success. However, I am more and more veering around to a guidance improvement theory.

The other thing could be BDL itself being new to the task is having problems.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2009 20:44

Another slightly different version
http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/569348

'The take off and first phase separation went off smoothly. However, the second stage booster failed to function,' a senior army official said, requesting anonymity.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 20:46

but were'nt BDL assembling these since 2001 ? The 2004-2009 gap in A II testing was unfortunate. My personal feeling is that A II has difficulty transiting into production at BDL. Regular testing will of course, iron out all such difficulties. Even with A-I, there should be regular tests. After all, P-I/II have been tested 30+ times, Brahmos 19 times and so on.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 20:56

No - initial production was at DRDL. When A-2 achieved IOC in 2004 or so most missiles were probably still DRDL.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2009 21:24

what is the estimated A2 inventory of all flavours?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 21:35

then when did BDL start A II production ? was this to scale up production ? Probably so. But 6-8 DRDL produced missiles assembled every year from 2001-2010 would have been just fine for a stop gap system. Unless conventional A II's are also planned, in which cased BDL-run mass production would be needed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2009 21:51

A2 would be way too costly for conventional warhead, even the A1 would break the bank going conventional.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Nov 2009 22:03

But then what does India have that'll hit the enemy 2000+ kms away with conventional warheads?
This means that the enemy's strategic sites, ordinance factories, command centers are out of range.

How cheap is the Nirbhay CM going to be compared to the Agnis?
Costwise is the Agni-3 (Which I'll assume can carry 3 warheads) cheaper than 3 Agni-2s?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2009 22:19

May be A2++->A3 becomes a TD, since A3 can cover A2 targets with MIRVs.

and, we should not be needing A3.. as well, if it can't cover upto mongolia!.

hence, A1, A3/4, and A5->S1 is good enough!?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Nov 2009 22:41

Inventory ?
My guess - 24-36 A-2 and probably the same for A-1.

BDL did not start until 2004. 6-8 per year might be a bit high. DRDL could make perhaps 3 per year.

A-2 was never intended as the primary Agni variant. Agni-3 was but now perhaps it is Agni-V.

A-2 was designed to get a viable IRBM in service as quickly as possible and once things started to happen we could have fielded something by 1999-2000 though far from ideal.

Conventional warheads are unlikely to be used with any Agni variant.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 24 Nov 2009 23:58

Sanjay,

Would these A II failures have any bearing on further A III testing ? No A III test took place this year.....

24-36 is indeed a very small number......until A III is there in enough numbers we have no deterrent against China. Against pakistan, A-I is a deterrent. Still, the numbers fielded are small. The NASIC report indicates pakistan fielding similar if not larger numbers of MRBMs.

Ballistic missile development/operationalization is severely neglected in Bharat. Hope this changes.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Nov 2009 00:24

The missile numbers are a function of the numbers of N bombs available to mount on them.

Going by the estimate that the current Indian arsenal is ~ 100 warheads or less, and say 50% are missile mounted, this leaves us with 20-30 on Prithvis and a similar number on Agni 1s and 2s.

While Pakistan is covered by every warhead that India has, China is covered by ~ 20-30 warheads at most on Agni-2s.

The question is, Is china deterred by 20-30 N tipped Agni-2s with bomb yields of ~25Kt to 1MT? China can easily deploy 300+ N tipped missile and air delivered warheads directed at India with yields of 20Kt-3.5MT.
[/wild guess]

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 02:36

Ramdas and Gagan -China is deterred enough for now it may not be in the future. Nobody wants missiles on their cities and China also knows that the 3 initial tests of A-2 worked.

Agni-3 is a totally different design and as such would have A-2 has no impact on it save an except to show what could be wrong with production methods.

The other thing to look at is damage during storage or improper maintenance by the army.

One other thing - notice how India was unafraid to test while the PM was in the US ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 04:28

Sanjay,

But right now 24-36 A II alone can reach China. Given the 3/5-4/6 record, say only 15-21 are likely to reach China assuming they survive a first strike. Given a first strike by China only half of those 7-10 are likely to reach Chinese targets + whatever aircraft may deliver (which are very few owing to effective air defenses the Chinese have). Of course 7-10 warheads would deter a regime that values the lives of ordinary citizens. But China ? I do not know. There is some deterrent. Certainly a credible one against TSP. Certainly a flimsy one against PRC. Hopefully, in 3-4 years, this will change. This is very likely to change if A III and A V testing continues.

I am disturbed by the lack of any A III test this year. That is not a good sign. It is A III and A V that should really be pushed.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 25 Nov 2009 05:11

ramdas wrote:Sanjay,

But right now 24-36 A II alone can reach China. Given the 3/5-4/6 record, say only 15-21 are likely to reach China assuming they survive a first strike. Given a first strike by China only half of those 7-10 are likely to reach Chinese targets + whatever aircraft may deliver (which are very few owing to effective air defenses the Chinese have). Of course 7-10 warheads would deter a regime that values the lives of ordinary citizens. But China ? I do not know. There is some deterrent. Certainly a credible one against TSP. Certainly a flimsy one against PRC. Hopefully, in 3-4 years, this will change. This is very likely to change if A III and A V testing continues.

I am disturbed by the lack of any A III test this year. That is not a good sign. It is A III and A V that should really be pushed.

Even if there are NO nukes, China is may not find it useful to attack India. China is not TSP, who have wet dreams of destroying India.
TSP however is very well covred.

Both by missiles and MKI's

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Nov 2009 05:32

Missile fails, so pass the buck

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 06:24

Gerard wrote:Missile fails, so pass the buck

Passing the buck is an unfair, typically Indian comment based on, I am sure the ignorance of the average Indian about the fact that in any complex system, figuring out what went wrong takes time. If our technology is primitive, it is in keeping with the rudimentary knowledge Indians display of technology.

Anyhow a quote:

A scientist said the missile was launched successfully but went off its pre-set trajectory about a minute after lift-off when it was at a height of about 20km. The missile has a two-stage thrust, the first lasting about 60 seconds and the second about 50 seconds.
The possibility is that the second-stage booster did not fire in the way it was expected to. Strangely, the last failure, in May, was also said to be at the second stage. On that occasion, when the missile was fired at 10.06 in the morning, it did not travel the full distance.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 07:13

sometimes I feel there is too much media coverage of these matters. In some situations, the media has to be muzzled. We do not see this kind of open coverage in any other country.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 07:35

Sanjay,

One more point: if A II, A III etc are only going to carry nuclear warheads, then searching for ultra high accuracy is pointless for deterrence purposes. The priority should be to have a robust reliable system with a CEP < 600 mtrs or so that we should deploy as soon as possible. Regular testing is a must to add credibility

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 25 Nov 2009 07:39

Btw, apart from the brf missile page, is there any other proof of Agni 2AT from public sources? The BRF nuke page used to mention those wonderful warheads - miniscule in size and monsterous in bang - all of them suddenly evaporated in thin air. So, how credible are the analysis on the missile ranges and versions? Don't get me wrong, I am sure the unmentionable web master had his heart in the correct place. But is there any confirmation from the public domain (sort of like a second opinion from another doctor)?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 08:11

ramdas wrote: We do not see this kind of open coverage in any other country.

No and I believe that is a valid point. In fact I had the same thought this morning and the same is true about nuclear weapons. Through the 60s and 70s (when I used to follow the print media carefully) there were hardly any internal country debates (from other nations) that continuously slammed compatriots for ignorance and incompetence in nuclear testing or missile testing.

The bottom line is (IMHO) India is different, and Indians are different. A cover up is only going to add fuel to the scorn and contempt fire. But I do believe that making Indian technology under the critical scrutiny of a contemptuous and mocking public will eventually ensure that Indian products are more reliable and dependable than all the shiny brochures that are used to sell us stuff. Although the contempt cannot be good for the morale of people who are working on it.

Did you see the serviceability rates of those R 77 missiles reported a few weeks ago.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 08:20

Shiv,

too much transparency has its risk. People at large expect that these efforts should yield immediate results. They are in general too stupid to realise that repeated and sustained efforts need to go into this. Much more than those who sold these efforts to the public originally "told" them. these repeated failures and the publicity given to them will open a window for pacifists/videshi-parasts to convince people that these efforts are a waste of money. that is the real danger. In general, this excessive press freedom is yet another lever that external interests can manipulate to subvert the nation's strategic rise. Till such a rise is complete, this openness of society is a luxury we cannot afford IMHO.

given our tragic history in the last thousand years, it is imperative that we acquire the most effective guarantees of national sovereignity that hold even if the entire world is hostile/indifferent to us. This should be a national goal on which there can be no compromise. Reliable long range ballistic missiles tipped with effective nuclear weapons are the weapons that amount to a true "shield of the motherland". Getting these has to be a top national priority. Ensuring a reasonable degree of food self sufficiency is about the only other national priority in the same league.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 08:56

ramdas wrote: too much transparency has its risk. People at large expect that these efforts should yield immediate results. They are in general too stupid to realise that repeated and sustained efforts need to go into this. Much more than those who sold these efforts to the public originally "told" them. these repeated failures and the publicity given to them will open a window for pacifists/videshi-parasts to convince people that these efforts are a waste of money. that is the real danger. In general, this excessive press freedom is yet another lever that external interests can manipulate to subvert the nation's strategic rise. Till such a rise is complete, this openness of society is a luxury we cannot afford IMHO.

Difficult to refute these points. In fact constant chafing criticism of our own efforts increases the desire of the armed forces to import without the insight that may show how those imported items have had the same pitfalls as indigenous stuff that may or may not have been totally corrected.

Having said that I have seen among scientists and DRDO types (some of who are ex armed forces) who laugh and say that it is better for people (especially adversary nations) to think that everything is useless and it doesn't work so that they can carry on surreptitiously doing things that people think we are incapable of doing, given our incompetence.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 09:45

Having said that I have seen among scientists and DRDO types (some of who are ex armed forces) who laugh and say that it is better for people (especially adversary nations) to think that everything is useless and it doesn't work so that they can carry on surreptitiously doing things that people think we are incapable of doing, given our incompetence

This line of thought makes sense for tactical weapon systems. For strategic weapon systems related to the deterrent, this makes no sense. For me, the main worry is whether we have the will to see the effort through

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 25 Nov 2009 12:22

too much transparency has its risk

Indeed it does , I for the life of me cannot understand why it has to be announced in advance when a missile or new system has to be tested. It does nothing apart from creating steam and hype amongst DDM and speculation runs rife. It would be so much more simpler if DRDO conducted tests tacitly , analyze the results and them come up with a carefully drafter statement or video recording for symbolic purposes, if necessary.