Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 25 Nov 2009 12:29

Agni II night trial: ‘It was one of the worst'
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... kuKw=&SEO=

Interesting thing to note here ...

‘

’Besides, the India-made inertial navigation system (INS) that guided the missile on its coordinated path by mid-way corrections also failed to provide the desired levels of performance. Significantly, during the developmental trials (all successful) foreign made INS used to be fitted into the missile,’’ he pointed out.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 14:18

SanjibGhosh wrote:Agni II night trial: ‘It was one of the worst'
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... kuKw=&SEO=

Interesting thing to note here ...

‘
’Besides, the India-made inertial navigation system (INS) that guided the missile on its coordinated path by mid-way corrections also failed to provide the desired levels of performance. Significantly, during the developmental trials (all successful) foreign made INS used to be fitted into the missile,’’ he pointed out.

Last time the missile wandered a bit and fell in the sea. This time it fell straight in - so last time was better!

I like that!

Anyhow if it is an indigenous INS - its failure can be set right - so we know it may have failed. But how come the failure has been pinpointed by expressbuzz so accurately when the are still figuring out what went wrong? . I don't recall the same instant accuracy in pinpointing failure having occurred in the Ecuador helo crash.

But this is par for the course for our media. DRDO must live with it.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 14:20

What is interesting to note is that without ascertaining the cause of the problem, it has turned into DRDO bashing already in elements of the press.

The test failed. Fine. Find out the problem. It could be a manufacturing flaw. It could be poor storage and maintenance.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2009 14:45

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.

that is exactly what is happening. read hemant rout's hatchet job in IE.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 16:25

Rahul M wrote:
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.
that is exactly what is happening. read hemant rout's hatchet job in IE.

Well Hemant Rout has an inside contact in the test center because he brings out info that no other source gets.

For example:

From this article yesterday

Defence sources said the nuclear capable 2,000-km plus range missile was launched from complex-IV positioned inside the Wheelers Island, about 12 km from Dhamra in Bhadrak district.

Who else has reported the bit about "Complex IV"?

And from the latest article
It was one of the worst

During post-mission analysis (PMA) it was found that the missile had covered 97 km in nearly 41 seconds while on earlier occasion it had covered around 203 km in 127 seconds. But peculiarly the scientists reportedly claim to have done a great job by launching the missile during night.

Who else reported these details?

Hemant Rout has an insider contact

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 16:41

this kind of writing is exactly why the press must be disciplined. the amount of leverage outside interests have to supress our strategic rise is tremendous only because of thngs like a free press and a free "civil society". In our country, democracy has come to mean freedom for all sorts of anti-national elements to pursue their agenda. Sometimes I beleive that the emergency of 1975-77 should have stayed on forever. Todays situation warrants something drastic like that. At least as far as the press goes.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 25 Nov 2009 16:41

shiv wrote:Well Hemant Rout has an inside contact in the test center because he brings out info that no other source gets.

For example:

From this article yesterday

Defence sources said the nuclear capable 2,000-km plus range missile was launched from complex-IV positioned inside the Wheelers Island, about 12 km from Dhamra in Bhadrak district.

Who else has reported the bit about "Complex IV"?

PTI was the first to mention the complex 4 in its report. That part now has been repeated by almost every media org.

Hindustantimes
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

Samay
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

Asianetindia
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

NewsX
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 17:05

So, by all accounts, it is a guidance issue with a new (different from development trials) guidance being tested.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 17:25

You mean I may have actually been right ?

Joking aside, this could be an interesting development. India always wanted a gimballed INS as opposed to a strap-down INS for greater accuracy.

This might be it. It could also account for the 2nd stage deviation and problems.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 17:30

Sanjay,

Why go for the highest accuracy when warheads are nuclear ? also, a new guidance system makes it a diffrerent missile from what was tested during development....

why was there no A III test this year ? in any case, A III has a RLG ins rather than a strap down system right from the start.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Nov 2009 17:39

maybe a 1km CEP @ 2000km is ok if you have a 500kt fusion device, but not if you have a 40kt fission

low yield -> need more accurate delivery to maximise desired damage to city ?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 18:13

Ramdas, I don't know the answers to your questions. However, India has always sought accuracy in its IRBMs - perhaps to give greater flexibility. One does not know in the future whether there will be a counter-force doctrine in effect.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 18:13

Avinash R wrote: PTI was the first to mention the complex 4 in its report. That part now has been repeated by almost every media org.

Hindustantimes
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

Samay
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

Asianetindia
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

NewsX
The night trial, a major step towards making it fully operational in the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), was conducted from a rail mobile system in the launch complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 7.50 pm, a defence source said soon after the versatile and indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile blasted off from the launch pad.

Ah thanks It sounds like a press release. But I still can't get past the feeling that he does have an inside contact. Not that its a crime - but he does seem to report a bit more - if you ignore the barbs at DRDO or whoever. It happened the last time too when Agni failed - he was the only one AFAIK to give certain details.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2009 18:16

ramdas wrote:Sanjay,

Why go for the highest accuracy when warheads are nuclear ? also, a new guidance system makes it a diffrerent missile from what was tested during development....

why was there no A III test this year ? in any case, A III has a RLG ins rather than a strap down system right from the start.

counter force.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2009 18:23

he was the only one AFAIK to give certain details.

which were at variance with what SBM's sources said IIRC. add to that the fact that he has made some incredibly stupid mistakes (even for DDM) during the same time, I for one won't be so ready to trust his 'judgement', which is after all what the IE article is.

it doesn't even name the defence analysts who ostensibly called for clipping DRDO's wings, people who have no reason to stay anonymous. unnamed sources always raises redflags in my mind when it comes to defence reporting in India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 18:23

Singha wrote:maybe a 1km CEP @ 2000km is ok if you have a 500kt fusion device, but not if you have a 40kt fission

low yield -> need more accurate delivery to maximise desired damage to city ?

Not really Singha. With modern cities 1 km CEP is fine for counter value, esp if you have MIRV. Less than 500 meters is needed only for counter force and even that might not be good enough for deep hardened bunkers. That is why counter force doctrines with the their megaton yields are slowly being discarded as old (1970s) warheads reach their expiry date and are being renewed by light warheads of lower yield.

One link that I read recently (linked off the deterrence thread) said that counter force with megaton yields invariably resulted in a counter value effect anyway, and the heavier megaton warheads made the delivery vehicles (which are the the most expensive component) bigger and more expensive to build and maintain.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 18:26

Rahul, my sources can be wrong and Rout can be correct. It is his jibes at DRDO that irritate me.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2009 18:32

sanjay ji, I understand that. I was just stating the facts. the picture that emerges from the past records considering each of them isn't complimentary to his journalistic credentials, IMVVHO. of course I could well be mistaken.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Nov 2009 18:47

Even though I am generally loathe to get into this CEP vs counterforce vs countervalue discussion ( which is why I keep off the deterrence thread typically), I'll still post a few things:

Air Force Gen. (ret.) Eugene Habiger, involved in the CBM effort, notes, however , " a 1,000-lb. conventional warhead with a few metres CEP ( circular error probable) has the same effect as 50 kilotons at 3,000 ft."

The above reference is from the September 2009 issue of Dti. its from the story titled 'Instant Sunshine'. The context is a discussion on nukes and Conventional ballistic missiles for strategic attack ( i.e the Trident conversion debate).

On the other hand apparently places like NORAD can withstand a direct hit by a 1 MT warhead and the relatively
new Yamantau complex in Russia can probably withstand even more.

I think it is rather difficult to make an exact judgement on this issue and can only really be decided by the strategic planning community.

On a different note, whatever may be the cause of the Agni-2 test going awry, in my opinion the move to canisterised missiles by ASL is a good step.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 18:50

D Roy wrote:
Air Force Gen. (ret.) Eugene Habiger, involved in the CBM effort, notes, however , " a 1,000-lb. with a few metres CEP ( circular error probable) has the same effect as 50 kilotons at 3,000 ft."
.

Thank you. That is a valuable quote. It takes a great deal of effort to try and make this point because it is counter intuitive and the idea of megaton yields have acquired a kind of deadly romance.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 25 Nov 2009 19:03

IMO, DRDO is struggling with lack of appropriate quality control protocols. I mean, having the technology and not being able to implement it in a system can only be a quality control issue. Missiles are complex systems and without a strict quality control in its production lines, the desired results can not be achieved.

ISRO can help DRDO in this regard.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2009 19:06

sourab_c wrote:IMO, DRDO is struggling with lack of appropriate quality control protocols. I mean, having the technology and not being able to implement it in a system can only be a quality control issue. Missiles are complex systems and without a strict quality control in its production lines, the desired results can not be achieved.

ISRO can help DRDO in this regard.

I see. how do you come to that conclusion ?

mody · Post by **mody** » 25 Nov 2009 19:19

If it was a problem with the Desi INS system and if the may 19 failure was also similar then it would suggest that they tried the India INS in the may 19 test the first time.
When it failed, the scientist were confident enough that it would work and tried the test again in June. This one succeeded. So now they wanted to carry out the test in adverse conditions, which is a night launch.
Though I don't understand, how a night launch makes it adverse condition. Its not like the SFC personeel had to do the job in candlelight or using only torches. A day or night launch would be essentially the same for the missle. Adverse conditions should mean adverse weather conditions.

Anyways, it can also mean that if the May 19 test failed due to Indian INS, they tested again with Foreign INS in June, just to show that the missile works just fine and that the failure was only due to the new system that they had tried to put in.
Now latest test once again would have tried to test the Indian INS system and aparently it has once again not lived upto expectations.
Though this would mean that the system as a whole works fine, but with a foreign INS system and its only the Indian INS system that needs further work.

Though this would raise the question, isn't therea cheaper way to test the INS system rather then carry out a full fledged AGNI-2 test?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 19:27

Without photographs it is difficult to say but it is possible that the crew would have had to work in totally blacked out conditions. Think about the circumstances in which an A-2 launch would be ordered - maurauding fighters/bombers could penetrate far into Indian airspace and be searching for these launchers. And no - a full test is needed.

This would appear to be a combination tech trials of a new INS plus user trials. Not a bad approach.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Nov 2009 19:28

Anyway, 2-3 launches in a single year from stock is a good sign as well.

It shows a decent number of these babies have been produced.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 19:50

What we DON'T know is what sorts of parameters have to be punched into consoles and what sub-systems have to be readied and in what sequence etc. One report said that the fins of stage 2 (I think) got locked in a particular position. What that a software glitch or a hardware glitch

Not only do we not know, I have not even seen such detailed discussions in public about failed or successful missile launches such as the early Patriot tests in the US or any Paki/Chinese test. We Indians certainly are different and this is the way it is always going to be - success or failure of any system

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 25 Nov 2009 19:57

D Roy wrote:Anyway, 2-3 launches in a single year from stock is a good sign as well.

It shows a decent number of these babies have been produced.

It may be that the army wants to finish this stock asap.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 20:02

Shiv - which report said that about the fins of stage 2 ? If that is the case then it could easily be a user error.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 20:05

Shivji,

what is "success of failure of any system" ? It is time we moved away from this obscene excess of "freedom of speech/opinion"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 20:07

Sanjay wrote:Shiv - which report said that about the fins of stage 2 ? If that is the case then it could easily be a user error.

Hemant Rout
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... kuKw=&SEO=

‘’Like the unsuccessful previous test on May 19, this time too the missile developed technical glitches at the stage separation phase. Although it crossed the first stage separation phase, because of inherent problem it had cumulative effects on other systems,’’ an official said today.

The official indicated that the control and command system to the fins which provides aero-dynamic thrust to the vehicle was locked thereby plunging the missile into the sea. “During the May trial the missile started wandering midway before falling, but this time it directly plunged into the sea. In fact it was one of the worst trials ever,” he said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 20:07

ramdas wrote:Shivji,

what is "success of failure of any system" ? It is time we moved away from this obscene excess of "freedom of speech/opinion"

Typo. Success or failure. Will correct

Ramdas - the more we (as in established/experienced BRFites "move away" from this the greater the number of newbies who will come up with the same things I have been seeing this for a decade now

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 20:10

Does A II stage 2 have fins ? I thought only stage 1 and the RV have fins.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2009 20:13

ramdas wrote:Does A II stage 2 have fins ? I thought only stage 1 and the RV have fins.

Heh Heh! Good point

Hemant Kumar Rout?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Nov 2009 20:25

Probable that RV fins locked and this caused everything to go haywire. Not an insoluble problem.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 21:04

are the first stage fins movable ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Nov 2009 21:28

i found out that the first stage is also controlled by moving fins...could that have failed ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Nov 2009 22:20

Failures in two tests when SFC was operating the missile give a different picture. Still the verdict is not out so it is good to wait for the outcome from the investigating team. The problem appeared after 60 sec in both the cases. If both were something due to guidance problem, it is expected that with the successful test in between these two failures the problem must have been solved. Though continuation of guidance problem cannot be completely ruled out chances of that repeating are less. So one could think about QC problem.

Second thing is Agni IInd stage, where the both failures are reported in test flight, operates flex nozzle. Agni II may deviate from the exact ballistic profile as expected of normal Ballistic missile. Chances are SFC might have tried a different profile/tragectory. Anyway will await for the complete result.

Fins stabilize and control the vehicle during re-entry. When the IInd stage completely fails, it could even be ignition problem.

Whatever, there are lessons to be learnt.

astal · Post by **astal** » 26 Nov 2009 00:21

Couple of points.

Why is our strategic missile program so transparent? If I remember correctly, we have agreements with Pakistan to inform each other about missile launches in advance. Another reason is to keep commercial air and marine traffic informed. Otherwise detection of a missile can result in much browning of pants. Other counties such as the US, Russia and China have large tracts of uninhabited land or a scattering of islands in remote places to test to their hearts content.

Pakistan, North Korea and UK do not need to test as their paint job/ screw driver technology/ intense collaboration is already tested many times and the actual tests are just ego boosters. France and the UK have some islands where they can do the job and the Aussies are always ready to help in the case of UK.

Why are the failures reported and discussed in detail?
Any game theorist will tell you that the less information you provide the better (they say in Hindi- "Bandh Mutthi Sava lakh ki" )
In this case though, since we have to declare that we are testing and even the suspicion of failure will lead to all sorts of speculation in the media and elsewhere (kind of like POK-2) the powers that be find it convenient to be honest. At the very least, a success cannot be doubted due to this level of transparency. It is also useful for strategic deterrence purposes as these weapons are never intended to be used.

Finally I cannot resist a jingoistic comment. Inshallah when the Arihants are ready with their AGNI-3 SL's they can go down to the deep Southern Indian Ocean and test to their hearts content in those less crowded areas.

(edited for clarity)

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 26 Nov 2009 05:29

Shivji,

By we I meant our country at large. It is clear that Hemant Rout types have other ulterior agendas...he writes about citizens groups demanding accountability from DRDO etc (see ToI). This is just the thin edge of the wedge. Pacifists and Praful Bidwai like elements play the same game to try and eventually ensure tha these programs are scuttled altogether in the name of their being a waste of money.

Still, I hope that we ASAP end this absolutely humiliating state of having a deployed IRBM arsenal that is inferior to that of TSP. Having an effective ballistic missile arsenal should be the top priority for the nation right now.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 26 Nov 2009 05:58

One more possible cause for A II failures can be sabotage. This is an angle that should be investigated as well.