Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2009 03:27

it may be not saner to test new sub components in a user trial..but the product itself is very expensive to give one test per sub component change. its a good idea.. but they should definitely have better pub-rel office to handle this rather.. let them just take a look at how khan defense reports happen.

also, they have to make sure the user is taken into confidence.. of course, i am assuming the truth is not yet out there.

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 28 Nov 2009 04:21

SaiK wrote:we should wait for what DRDO is about to say for these failures..

May be if our loud mouth media showed as much attention on these issues as Karenna Kapoor and Saif Ali Khan, they would be doing the country a great favor.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2009 07:16

There is not much info on the guidance problems except that one liner by Rout. The way he has written it seems to suggest, mind you suggest, that somehow the desi system is at fault.

I think that the entire videshi vs desi INS / guidance system issue is bogus.

This is reflective of the "videshi is best, condemn all the rest" mentality more than anything else.

How can any organization put in a desi guidance system on a system unless its performance is at par or exceeds the videshi system hain ji?

The news media are not able to give a clear picture either, mostly because reporters can't distinguish between a raakit and a submarine. Then to expect them to report on if there was a stage seperation issue or a failure of the 2nd stage motor or an issue with the INS is asking too much of them

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Nov 2009 07:24

RamaY wrote: It is one thing to classify the truth, but it is another thing when the tests fail. The missile tests failed and the Bums failed. If this is truth, then what is GOI trying to hide under the CMD hijab?

Arre RamaY ji why are you talking of nuclear capability. Have you read the latest Vayu? 40% of our R-77 Beyond Visual Range air to air missiles were unserviceable before expiry date. The could not be phyred. So our conventional missiles are also not working. Which hijab to use to hide that?

Not only are DRDO and GoI are hiding this fact, but also patriotic private media who have exposed the failures of Agni.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2009 07:32

The media needs to be taken into the missile factories and labs and shown the chamak-dhamak of high tech equipment and processes there.

Like was done for the Arihant's reactor.
Once the journalists actually saw a sub reactor (the first time any journalist in india has seen a sub N reactor in his entire saat pusht), they are overawed at what has been acheived. The perspective they have then results in them not writing a single track articles blaming the DRDO / Nuclear corp. for not being able to do things right, they think every sarkari organization is like a post office or the civil courthouse.

Until the government gets more perestroika and gets media savvy, we will have to bear with these articles that this does not work, that could not be built, this organization is a failure. Then we'll more easily identify the lifafa journos, since the few who were truly ignorant will hopefully be filtered out.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Nov 2009 09:33

Gagan wrote:The media needs to be taken into the missile factories and labs and shown the chamak-dhamak of high tech equipment and processes there.

Yes first take them to the R 77 factories in Jharkhand or wherever they set up these public sector enterprises.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Nov 2009 10:00

The problem is that 95% of the media will not want to learn or educate themselves in these matters. Their interests are driven by sales figures, TRP, etc.

They need to be infused with some sense of responsibility. Any article related to strategic or military significance should be "ok"ed by the government before it is published. The editors should face legal charges for publishing speculation and non-factual information.

The sources that leak these information can NOT remain anonymous forever. This is a matter of national security - the information should be extracted from the reporter - the person who leaked the information has be chase by CBI and put behind bars.

sorry for being OT

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 28 Nov 2009 11:18

Kailash wrote: Any article related to strategic or military significance should be "ok"ed by the government before it is published.

This I think would be death of the democracy....It can not be like that...media must be allowed to speculate anything or...every thing...!!!

Kailash wrote:The sources that leak these information can NOT remain anonymous forever. This is a matter of national security - the information should be extracted from the reporter - the person who leaked the information has be chase by CBI and put behind bars.

I am agree with this...that leakage should be dealt with iron fists.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 28 Nov 2009 15:38

This I think would be death of the democracy....It can not be like that...media must be allowed to speculate anything or...every thing...!!!

If media speculation is controlled, this would be the death of the "free for all" over-democracy we have today. But if that democracy's death is necessary for the country to emerge as a powerful nation, it must happen. A controlled and disciplined democracy is what we should aim for.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Nov 2009 15:49

ahem guys, we are going OT. stick to the missiles for this thread plz.
thanks.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 28 Nov 2009 21:51

Tests on air launch version of BrahMos to be over by 2012
http://www.zeenews.com/news582736.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2009 09:24

I am trying to put together all the news reports so far and make sense as to what happened. Most likely there is a SS problem and its an aging issue.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 01 Dec 2009 09:41

>>>Can anyone tell me what is so special about launching a missile at night? Why does one need daylight for launching a missile? Can the missile not "see" without light? How is this launch more complex or complicated than launches in daylight?

May be they wanted to try out celestial navigation

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2009 09:50

geeth wrote:>>>Can anyone tell me what is so special about launching a missile at night? Why does one need daylight for launching a missile? Can the missile not "see" without light? How is this launch more complex or complicated than launches in daylight?

May be they wanted to try out celestial navigation

The night launch is not a factor. It was to showcase SFC all day and night capability. Besides the launch prep takes 15 min. per the news reports.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 01 Dec 2009 12:06

sanjaychoudhry wrote:Tests on air launch version of BrahMos to be over by 2012
http://www.zeenews.com/news582736.html

Can the air-launched version be made smaller for the missile to have anywhere from 60-80-120 KM range so that it can be carried by any aircraft in IAF inventory? That would mean a A2G and anti-shipping roles for the missiles and aircraft. Is that possible?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 23:46

Is it possible that both the last two flights were on max Q trajectories? IOW separation occured at high aerodynamic loads and caused the control system lock up?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Dec 2009 23:47

What do you mean by max Q ?

You may be on to something.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Dec 2009 04:08

venkat_r wrote:
sanjaychoudhry wrote:Tests on air launch version of BrahMos to be over by 2012
http://www.zeenews.com/news582736.html
Can the air-launched version be made smaller for the missile to have anywhere from 60-80-120 KM range so that it can be carried by any aircraft in IAF inventory? That would mean a A2G and anti-shipping roles for the missiles and aircraft. Is that possible?

I would think not without extensive R&D effort (basic design changes externally and internally), a full flight testing and setting up new production facilities ... so at the end of the day, these two missiles will be very different with "some percentage" of parts being shared (and maybe some "scaled-down" external resemblance).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Dec 2009 08:39

may be the chromium didn't work as expected!?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2009 09:03

for those who havent piloted the Mig25 and SR71 (!), above 80,000ft the sky looks almost black...I guess above 120kft (40km) the sky is pitch black and stars can be seen, day or night.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Dec 2009 05:26

Winning on Ballistic Missiles but Losing on Cruise: The Missile Proliferation Battle

Weak international norms related to cruise missiles have affected India’s behavior with regard to the utility of confidence-building measures and access to foreign cruise missile technology. Although India has not subscribed to the Hague Code of Conduct, which urges subscribers to implement pre-launch notifications, New Delhi has cooperatively pursued a missile launch notification agreement with Islamabad. From the outset of negotiations, Pakistan sought to include cruise missile launches in the agreement. India balked, not least because prior to a tentative agreement between the two countries in August 2005, only India had tested cruise missiles. With Pakistan’s surprise launch of its own cruise missile barely a week after the tentative accord was reached, New Delhi must have begun to reconsider its shortsightedness in keeping cruise missiles out of the agreement. By April 2006, after Pakistan had successfully conducted its second flight test of its new cruise missile, India signaled its interest in bringing cruise missiles into the joint notification accord. Thus far, cruise missiles remain outside this important regional accord, intensifying concerns about the destabilizing impact of a cruise missile arms race in South Asia.

The perception of normative differentiation between ballistic and cruise missiles also appears evident in India’s attempts to acquire cruise missile technologies to extend the range of its nascent cruise missile programs. Pakistan’s surprise cruise missile test in 2005 prompted calls in the Indian press to extend the range of the BrahMos cruise missile at least to that of Pakistan’s Babur and much farther if possible. Such an extension in range, it was noted, would require access to restricted technologies from Russia, an MTCR member state. The Indian press assumed that obtaining these technologies was feasible because the BrahMos cruise missile, unlike India’s ballistic missiles, was not subject to the same level of international scrutiny. Although there is no evidence that Russia has aided India in an extended-range version of the BrahMos cruise missile, Indian officials have publicly spoken of a BrahMos follow-on capable, within a decade, of traveling 1,000 kilometers at hypersonic speeds.

Even more provocative was India’s failed attempt in 2006 to flout existing MTCR guidelines by approaching the European missile giant, France-based MBDA Missile Systems, in hopes of obtaining a technology transfer arrangement and complete cruise missile systems. The Indian press reported that the deal fell apart in last-minute negotiations, but a more likely explanation is that after the respective French and Indian defense organizations reached a tentative agreement, the deal was nixed by the French government in light of obvious MTCR restrictions.[15] Since then, India has turned to Israel for assistance in achieving longer-range cruise missiles while India and Pakistan compete for advantage with new cruise missile deployments.

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 10 Dec 2009 14:22

Agni II test will be conducted again

Saraswat said that the Agni II ballistic missile test that failed recently would be conducted again. It was a result of poor manufacture of components. “Certain components were of poor quality and we have already alerted the manufacturers about it. The test will be conducted soon,” he said.

link: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/drdo- ... s/552392/2

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Dec 2009 14:42

Saraswat said that the Agni II ballistic missile test that failed recently would be conducted again. It was a result of poor manufacture of components. “Certain components were of poor quality and we have already alerted the manufacturers about it. The test will be conducted soon,” he said.

really scary statement, esp when concerning our "brahmastras"...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Dec 2009 16:39

sum wrote:
Saraswat said that the Agni II ballistic missile test that failed recently would be conducted again. It was a result of poor manufacture of components. “Certain components were of poor quality and we have already alerted the manufacturers about it. The test will be conducted soon,” he said.

really scary statement, esp when concerning our "brahmastras"...

Not scary sum. It's happy news. They have found something, have identified a source/sources and are going to test again.

What could be happier than that? I belive that we are lucky not to be going through what the US, Europe and Japan went through in their wars when design/manufacturing errors resulted in war losses and fatalities.

Those countries are ahead now because their learning curve took place more than 50 years ago. We are doing that now.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 10 Dec 2009 17:11

So, it seems that the reason for the A II failure has been found. But should'nt there be a way of detecting poor components without having to launch the missile itself ? The other worry is that this failure was not one off. It was a repeat of a previous failure more or less. Why was it not pinpointed then ?

Also, mere alerting manufacturers may not be sufficient. Since this is a critical matter, manufacture must proceed under strict surveillance to minimize the possibility of sabotage. Paranoia is necessary in these matters.

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Dec 2009 17:26

Also, mere alerting manufacturers may not be sufficient. Since this is a critical matter, manufacture must proceed under strict surveillance to minimize the possibility of sabotage. Paranoia is necessary in these matters.

Absolutely...David Sanger mentions in his latest book as to how the Amrikis/Israelis managed to sabotage and ship defective components to Iran for its N-program leading to huge losses in time and money for Iran ( due to exploding sub-systems which were caused by the defective parts)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Dec 2009 19:30

I don't have an engineering background but I would love some answers on this.

Is it possible to test the strength / composition of the materials used in the missile's structure using X rays etc? It is possible that civilian contractors might want to cut corners in terms of materials by using cheaper and therefore inferior quality materials. I hope some netajis relative is not the supplier, as usually sarkari contract invariably end up with them.

Dr Saraswat's statement I assume refers to some mechanical component that is being used in the missile, I assume that the electronics and the fuel used is a DRDO inhouse product or is from a source that is not in doubt.

So this turns out to be a quality control issue, which means that responsibility will be fixed, and changes will be carried out to the entire fleet as required.

Good.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Dec 2009 19:59

Bad quality also means bad quality control process management. (CMM). i guess, that is what Sum is saying.

Of course, we would have no ideal test condition for each product/component tested. But, the kind of product, should invest into such setup. Definitely missile systems qualifies for rocket science and precision engineering quality controls.

Net sum, nothing wrong in learning from mistakes. But, no use if we don't chase after quality control processes.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Dec 2009 20:05

Is it possible to test the strength / composition of the materials used in the missile's structure using X rays etc?

gagan ji, for strength no. unless you are 100% sure about the exact material in which case you already have the relevant data. cracks etc can be discovered using sound waves.

determining composition, while not impossible, won't be easy.while the general 'type' of the material can be characterised and determined by such tests, minute differences in composition won't be noticeable unless there are considerable differences in underlying physical structure. but I doubt that can happen, even a lax supplier will provide items in the ballpark of the 'correct' ones or the ISRO engineers will catch the problem straight away.
even so, it will depend on the actual materials used and their properties. without knowing what is used it's near impossible to answer this question.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Dec 2009 22:01

Gagan, The usual process for critical components used for aerospace systems is this:
1) First develop loads requirements based on analysis for different trajectories: max Q etc
2) Analyse components to above loads and using probabilistic methods extrapolate for 1:500 loads
3) Qualify ie test on ground on shaker table etc to the 1:500 loads
4) Verify each component to 1:100 loads prior to acceptance

So most likely the acceptance tests were not representative. BTW its the electronic black boxes that usually dont perform for many reasons.

cbelwal · Post by **cbelwal** » 10 Dec 2009 23:21

Report of an operational Russian Missle test failing. Proves that operational missles can and do fail even in advanced missle nations. This one almost created a UFO hysteria on the web.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8405481.stm

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Dec 2009 23:22

can we please discuss the russian test in the international aerospace thread ?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Dec 2009 12:04

Singha wrote:for those who havent piloted the Mig25 and SR71 (!), above 80,000ft the sky looks almost black...I guess above 120kft (40km) the sky is pitch black and stars can be seen, day or night.

You Lucky B#@#%D to have piloted MiG 25 AND SR 71

I envy you !!!!!

K

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Dec 2009 12:06

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Dec 2009 12:09

Rahul M wrote:
Is it possible to test the strength / composition of the materials used in the missile's structure using X rays etc?
.

Reminds me of an old joke

An astronaut leaving for the moon is interviewed the day before the flight. He is asked if he is feeling scared. He said yes i am feeling scared. The interviewer asks why

"Because I am going to fly in an ship made of 125,000 components, each of these components have been bought from the cheapest supplier !!!! "

K

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 11 Dec 2009 13:00

Kersi D wrote: An astronaut leaving for the moon is interviewed the day before the flight. He is asked if he is feeling scared. He said yes i am feeling scared. The interviewer asks why

"Because I am going to fly in an ship made of 125,000 components, each of these components have been bought from the cheapest supplier !!!! "

K

for the first time I miss read it as CHINESE SUPPLIERS...anyhow...I mean no offense to anyone.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2009 15:02

I fly with the eagles...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Dec 2009 13:33

‘Dhanush’ missile successfully test fired

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article64463.ece

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 Dec 2009 14:21

What's the use of Dhanush ? It has neither range nor a big payload.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 13 Dec 2009 14:35

jamwal wrote:What's the use of Dhanush ? It has neither range nor a big payload.

1st: of all it is sea to surface missile...so it has diversified portability of Prithvi Class Missiles.

2nd***: I have read some where that it has better shelf life than that of Prithvi...!

*** ==> I am open to words of wisdom from gurus of the time...!