Indian Missile News And Discussion - Printable Version +- Forums (http://india-forum.com) +-- Forum: Indian and International Forces (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Forum: Military Discussion (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=22) +--- Thread: Indian Missile News And Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=182) |
Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 11-24-2009 I think it is important to have a separate thread for Indian missile system, since it is an important leg of Indian triad of nuclear deterrence. Missile are also important tactical weapons. With the recent failures of an otherwise assumed to be reliable Agni-2 missile system has seriously undermined Agni-2 deterrence value. [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Agni-II-missile-fails-to-clear-night-trial/articleshow/5262395.cms"]Agni-II missile fails to clear night trial[/url] Quote:TNN 24 November 2009, 12:28am IST [url="http://www.timesnow.tv/Agni-II-missile-fails-to-clear-night-trial/articleshow/4332825.cms"]Agni-II missile fails to clear night trial[/url] Quote:24 Nov 2009, 0859 hrs IST [url="http://ibnlive.in.com/printpage.php?id=105847§ion_id=3' target='_blank'"]DRDO admits N-capable Agni-II failed night testing[/url] Quote:CNN-IBN Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 11-24-2009 While failure analysis will pinpoint exact cause, looking at preliminary news report it appears that it is again a flight control problem, very similar to the last A2 failure. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 11-24-2009 <b>Agni-II fails to meet mission parameters</b> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tue, Nov 24 11:52 AM Balasore (Orissa), Nov 24 (PTI) The first-ever night trial of India''s nuclear capable Agni-II Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) has failed to meet all the mission parameters, defence sources said today. "The test-fire, conducted from the Wheeler Island off Orissa coast last night, could not achieve all the desired results and pre-coordinated parameters," they said after a thorough analyses of the mission data. The two-stage indigenously developed Agni-II missile, with a range of 2000 km, which was test-fired from a mobile launcher, was intended to train the end-user, the Strategic Force Command of the Indian Army, to operate the sophisticated missile in adverse conditions. However, after a smooth take-off and proper first stage separation, the sleek missile appeared to have failed to meet the desired results mid-way at the second stage separation, the sources said. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 11-25-2009 <b>Agni-II night trial ends in failure</b> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Sources in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) told The Hindu that some malfunction occurred after 60 seconds when the missile reached an altitude of 20 km, following which it nosedived into the sea. The fact that the first stage, a replica of the SLV-3 first stage, functioned well showed it was robust. âSomething went wrong after the first stage,â the sources said. <b>The malfunction, probably in the control system for a few seconds, affected the normal thrust and resulted in the missile losing its speed. The vehicle became uncontrollable subsequently. The problem might have occurred either during separation or ignition of the second stage. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 11-27-2009 <b>Agni-II's night trial is a flop show</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The first-ever night trial of India's nuclear capable Agni-II Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile has failed to meet all the mission parameters, defence sources said on Tuesday. "The test-fire, conducted from the Wheeler Island off Orissa coast on Monday night, could not achieve all the desired results and pre-coordinated parameters," they said after a thorough analyses of the mission data. The two-stage indigenously developed Agni-II missile, <b>with a range of 2000 km</b>, which was<b> test-fired from a mobile launcher,</b> was intended to train the end-user, the Strategic Force Command of the Indian Army [ Images ], to operate the sophisticated missile in adverse conditions. However, after a smooth take-off and proper first stage separation, the sleek missile appeared to <b>have failed to meet the desired results mid-way at the second stage separation</b>, the sources said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 12-09-2009 [quote name='Arun_S' date='24 November 2009 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1259045910' post='102751'] While failure analysis will pinpoint exact cause, looking at preliminary news report it appears that it is again a flight control problem, very similar to the last A2 failure. [/quote] Arunji, Do you have any further feedback on the cause for this failure ? 1. If it is the same problem as in the May test, was the cause not pinpointed then ? 2. why do some reports talk of problems after second stage separation after a smooth first stage separation ? This does not match Hemant rout's report of it crashing after 97 km.. 3. Is it a fundamental design flaw or more of a quality control problem ? 4. A Hemant Rout article also makes claims about a foreign INS being replaced by a local one which did not perform on par...How far is this likely to be true ? 5. By the look of it, any credible ballistic missile requires around 10 tests, even if 3 are enough for IOC. Afre initial operationalization, continued credibility would require 2-3 tests/year ideally, 1-2 otherwise. When is A-III going to be tested next ? Will this A II failure have a bearing on A III testing ? (Certainly if there is a fundamental issue with our INS...but I do not know if that is true. 6. What about the possibility of BDL having difficulty absorbing the technology for production ? /possibility of sabotage during production ? 7. Possibility of greater degradation of certain components due to aging/handling than anticipated ? 8. Unkil's testing processes seem extremely rigorous. The trident II had 20 land launched development flights...3 were failures and all these occurred after 7-8 consecutive successful flights. Then came sub launched operational tests which had 2 failures among the first four. Seven more were successfully launched after that i.e, 26/31 when it first became fully operational. It has since had around 200 or more consecutive successful launches without a single failure. The soviet R36M2 in spite of being a modification of the R-36MUttKh, (uprated engines by 10%) had 25/30 record when it went operational..... The credibility in these cases is from a consistent testing process. That is the key. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 [url="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/drdo-mission-to-promote-technology-for-lowintensity-conflicts/552392/2"]ââ¬ËAgni II test will be conducted againââ¬â¢[/url] Quote: Dec 10, 2009 at 0502 hrs Redeeming this double failure will take time for it require multiple successful tests to prove system reliability. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 Sorry for late reply, I was unable to access the forum because of all kinds of connectivity problem. [quote name='Kritavarma' date='09 December 2009 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1260336718' post='102847'] Arunji, Do you have any further feedback on the cause for this failure ? 1. If it is the same problem as in the May test, was the cause not pinpointed then ? 2. why do some reports talk of problems after second stage separation after a smooth first stage separation ? This does not match Hemant rout's report of it crashing after 97 km.. 3. Is it a fundamental design flaw or more of a quality control problem ? [/quote] Trouble shooting flight failure on a missile that is released to user service is more troublesome because it is not as intensely instrumented. Analysis from limited data often lead to many failure modes and in the eventual parato analysis some of have lower probability thus no deeper scrutiny, specially if it is a multi variable problem. So it is possible that it is not caught in first fix. Quote:4. A Hemant Rout article also makes claims about a foreign INS being replaced by a local one which did not perform on par...How far is this likely to be true ? If it was only INS it will be easy to identify and fix, but it is also very very unlikely that it was only an INS problem, more likely to be a compound problem. Both the failed tests were near Max-Q portion of flight trajectory, and that generally points to control system failure. And Control system spans many subsystems ranging from control laws (software), sensors and actuators. Quote:5. By the look of it, any credible ballistic missile requires around 10 tests, even if 3 are enough for IOC. Afre initial operationalization, continued credibility would require 2-3 tests/year ideally, 1-2 otherwise. When is A-III going to be tested next ? Will this A II failure have a bearing on A III testing ? This should open the eyes of powers to be who have till now believed in regime that involves way fewer tests to proof the design, and even lesser proofing the inventory and manufacturing process. The mentality of international approbation "Log Kya Kahaingay" is suicidal. IOC after 3 successful flight test of Agni-III is IMVHO OK, what is not OK is if that IOC is not quickly followed up by another 6 tests from initial production stock. Quote:6. What about the possibility of BDL having difficulty absorbing the technology for production ? /possibility of sabotage during production ? Thoroughness is not an national trait of Indian psyche and is more pronounced in PSU. Strategic weapons/system can't survive such process, and they must tighten control if they products guarantee national security. There is cost to it and there is no two ways to paying that cost. Quote:7. Possibility of greater degradation of certain components due to aging/handling than anticipated ? This I initially thought could be a likely possibility. And one can guard against it by only doing regular test from inventory stock. But given recent statement by Shri Saraswat, this is less probable. Quote:8. Unkil's testing processes seem extremely rigorous. The trident II had 20 land launched development flights...3 were failures and all these occurred after 7-8 consecutive successful flights. Then came sub launched operational tests which had 2 failures among the first four. Seven more were successfully launched after that i.e, 26/31 when it first became fully operational. It has since had around 200 or more consecutive successful launches without a single failure. Your said it. Familiarity breeds contempt, Testing breeds confidence ! Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 12-11-2009 [quote name='Arun_S' date='10 December 2009 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1260473359' post='102878'] Sorry for late reply, I was unable to access the forum because of all kinds of connectivity problem. Trouble shooting flight failure on a missile that is released to user service is more troublesome because it is not as intensely instrumented. Analysis from limited data often lead to many failure modes and in the eventual parato analysis some of have lower probability thus no deeper scrutiny, specially if it is a multi variable problem. So it is possible that it is not caught in first fix. If it was only INS it will be easy to identify and fix, but it is also very very unlikely that it was only an INS problem, more likely to be a compound problem. Both the failed tests were near Max-Q portion of flight trajectory, and that generally points to control system failure. And Control system spans many subsystems ranging from control laws (software), sensors and actuators. [/quote] 1. But still, that the INS could underperform is worrying. Does that not have implications for A-III, Shourya, unless INS underperformance was due to extreme abnormal conditions caused by other circumstances. Saraswat's remarks seem to hint at quality control with some mechanical interfaces. 2. Regarding Max-Q trajectories, was none of the development flights done on such a regime ? Very unlikely. Surely, one development flight would have been on a max-Q trajectory. 3. Sanjay on BR says that he has sources telling him that A-II was not ruggedized while A-III has been ruggedized during the design process itself. This is very possible since A-III has been designed as a weapon from the beginning while A-II has civilian origins. In this specific instance, it makes more sense to push A-III forward than A-II. 4. Especially given that news reports now say A-III is also being inducted. How true is this ? 5. Sanjay also says that there was a successful A-II test on Jun 19 2009. This was reported by very few sources. Not Hemant Rout. Did such a test really take place ? You too said something to this effect around that time on BR. 6. In the long run, given aging issues and the like, canisterization would be the solution. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 Who Sanjay? The same self proclaimed missile expert who does not know what is max-Q trajectory! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 [quote name='Kritavarma' date='11 December 2009 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1260503347' post='102890'] 1. But still, that the INS could underperform is worrying. Does that not have implications for A-III, Shourya, unless INS underperformance was due to extreme abnormal conditions caused by other circumstances. Saraswat's remarks seem to hint at quality control with some mechanical interfaces. [/quote] Who said INS underperformed? Anything could underperformed, one need to be worried and try to understand implication only when we know what (if any) underperformed. Cross the bridge when it comes. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 12-11-2009 [quote name='Arun_S' date='11 December 2009 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1260512260' post='102900'] Who said INS underperformed? Anything could underperformed, one need to be worried and try to understand implication only when we know what (if any) underperformed. Cross the bridge when it comes. [/quote] 1. It was Hemant Rout who claimed that local INS underperformed (and development flights had videshi INS) in one of his articles. I do not know how accurate he would be in such details. You would probably know better. 2. Saraswat's statement indicates that components (plural) were poorly manufactured. So, unless ground testing facilitites to detect poor components are truly comprehensive, more than one flight being required to detect the poor components is very very plausible. Especially in not fully instrumented samples. 3. at least before these types of tests, can't there be a system of component verification that detects these flaws ? Probably component verification after dismantling one or two specimens from a production lot, if it needs to be done. 4. Whenever this sequence of failures ends, a sequence of 5-6 successful flights after that will do a lot to restore A-II credibility - the main issue is that BDL and not DRDO now produce the missile and there have been difficulties during this transition. Probably also change in scale of production is an issue. the 5-6 successful tests that will be very likely after this sequence of failures ends will be a sign of production capability having stabilized. 5. Even after that, 1-2 tests each year will have to be done on operational missiles throughout the operational life span. While this is not as thorough as Unkil, it is still acceptable. This is how it has been with Prithvis. They have had regular tests after IOC. 6. My personal feeling, however is that for TSP one must rapidly operationalize the Shourya class of missiles. So far , two tests happened, right ? I do not count pop-out tests. 7. As for PRC, it is better to focus on A-III and its successors. Right now, as far as credibility goes, A-II and A-III stand at more or less the same level. It is better to push A-III more aggresively. No A-III test this year (2009) is criminal. 8. Is A-III being inducted as some news reports indicate ? Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 After the current fault is fixed, more tests are required to further increase reliability and shake out other bugs that may be lurking. It is true for all strategic missiles, including A2, A3, Shaurya, AAD and PAD (including it final avatar that is not Prithvi based). Shying away from rapid testing as these missiles enter IOC is serious disservice to India, IMHO intense flight testing regime is critical for these missile to be of real value to national defense. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-14-2009 [url="http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article64463.ece?css=print"]'Dhanush' missile test-fired successfully[/url] Quote:Y. Mallikarjun So Agni-II test failure root cause is narrowed down to Second stage ignition AND its flex nozzle. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-14-2009 [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-5333773,prtpage-1.cms"]Dhanush blips out Agni failures: ToI[/url] Quote:TNN 13 December 2009, 10:37pm IST Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-14-2009 More Dhanush Missile test news reports: [url="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2009121455301100.htm&date=2009/12/14/&prd=th&"]Dhanush missile test fired successfully: Hindu[/url] Quote:Y. Mallikarjun & T.S.Subramanian [url="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_missile-dhanush-has-textbook-launch_1323442"]Missile Dhanush has textbook launch: DNA[/url] Quote:Subhashish Mohanty / DNA [url="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/553587/"]India successfully tests nuclear-capable missile Dhanush: Indian Express[/url] Quote:Agencies Posted online: Sunday , Dec 13, 2009 at 1814 hrs Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 12-14-2009 Arun , what is the significant of Dhanush as anti-ship missile , compared to antiship missile it is a large single stage missile , since it spends most of the time in Air it is easily trackable by ships long range radar and intercepted at higher altitude at long ranges by ships anti-aircraft missile. Dhanush will have value as Land Attack Missile , but as anti-ship weapons its utility is at best secondary Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-15-2009 Austin, Glad to to have you on this forum. I look forward to rewarding collaboration. Recent press reports mention Dhanush role also as an Anti-ship missile, in the same breath calling out its range as 350 Km. The challange hitting a moving navel target at 350 Km is first detecting and identifying a perticular ship in a fleet at that range, and projecting/extrapolating its position by the time OODA response time (which is much more than missile flight time). Given that Dhanush is a hybrid semi-ballistic missile (with aerodynamic lift available most during of the trajectory, it does lend itself to terminal maneuvering). But for successful indiction, the Dhanush either: 1.) Gets final target position for interception via a data-link that is connected in realtime to observing platform. For most carrier bourn armada getting cloer to 300 Km radius from battle group is a difficult challange. However for a non-carrier battle group that is not very difficult. OR 2.) Carry multi-sensor guidance package (RF and optical) to discriminate a perticular vessal in a battle group. Preferably passive and not active. This is a challenge that DRDO has yet to demonstrate mastery. For high value navel targets, lack of terminal accuracy can be compensated by a high yield nuclear weapon. Unlike Brahmos that cant carry a big nuclear warhead (perhaps limited to ~20 kT), Dhanush can carry high yield FBF or TN and fly a trajectory using only passive guidance/sensors. In either case Dhanush class missile with its slow speed is liable to interception by Agies class warships (US has sold many such ship to other countries), its winged maneuverability will however makes it bit more challenging to Aegis ABM interceptors. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Guest - 12-20-2009 Arun Thanks , Regarding Dhanush its anti-ship capability is what i believe is secondary and good to have capability . Finding a moving target like ships is a real challenge and discriminating a Carrier/Destroyer amongst the fleet is another challenge , Dhanush is again a large single stage missile making it a large target and its slow terminal speed and high altitude flight can make it vulnerable to missile like Shtil-1,Aster ,SM-2/3 Finally the sticking point for Dhanush is the limited amount of platform that can carry then , Currently IN AOPV is being used as a platform to test and most likely they will remain the only platform that will carry it ( probably in the single helicopter hanger ) , it being a liquid fuel missile carrying it on other naval capital platform is a risk IN will not likely take. So we will not see Dhanush deployed in meaningful number and platforms , this seems to be a stop gap measure perhaps will also serve as a sea mobile BM Target for future ABM testing , The Sagarika/K-15 on the other hand is more robust and capable system and its deployment on Sea Based Platform besides ATV is something we must think about. Indian Missile News And Discussion - Arun_S - 12-20-2009 [url="http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/2009/dec09.pdf"]DRDO Tech Focus ISSN : 0971-4413 for Dec 2009[/url] is out. [url="http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/2009/dec09.pdf"]http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/2009/dec09.pdf[/url] Has good article on Nishant Wrenkle Engine (55 Hp, 100 kg thrust). Quote:Salient Features Also hypersonic engine test bed simulates flight at 32 Km altitude, with: Inlet at Mach-2, Temp: 2000 K, Pressure: 4 bar pressure, Combustor Air flow: 3/1 Kg/se, O2 flow: 1.05 Kg/sec H2 flow: 0.08 Kg/sec Ejector mass flow 22 kg/sec at Mach-4 |