12-10-2010, 04:06 PM
[quote name='babbup' date='10 December 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1291961824' post='109770']
So many differing stories in the media about, what is the truth? Is it a success, a failure or a partial-failure?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, it has failed. The link here http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/ says that there was some stability problem with the missile body. This probably indicates that:
1. Each new BM is in a way, an altogether different animal. Ground tests, etc can only go so far in this business (though France with the M-51 has been able tomake do with limited tests, all successful..USSR/Russia very different...as was USA during the early phase of the Trident II).
2. testing must be made more frequent. The rate now is better than it was 6-7 years ago. But this rate must increase. Something like 4-5 tests of each type (A-II, A-II+, A-III, A-V) every year should be the target.
3. Probably pushing A-III more than A-II makes sense. A-III must undergo operational trials ASAP.
4. A-I and Shourya seem to have had no problem with 7-8 succesful tests each. These take care of TSP.
5. Waiting for A-II+ was a serious mistake. Even if this were successful, it would take 4-5 years to go operational. This failure may cause a 6 month delay or so if they really push it. They could have pushed the old A-II and A-III instead. Even accounting for the failures of A-II, we would have a proven missile in reasonable numbers now.
6. Will A-V test be de;ayed because of this ?
7. Arunji, could the K-4 test have been a surface breaking test of the kind shown at the beginning of this video ?
http://video.mail.ru/mail/aviger/538/2173.html
That would explain why it would take 2017 or so till K-4 is operational.
8. A-II+ looks unrelated to K-4. It has a high L/D ratio. Certainly not like a land based version of an SLBM. Probably not the "canisterized A-II" Dr. Saraswat referred to.
9. For 3000-4000km type range, it will take 5 years for the deterrent to become more credible. This is changed if A-III gets successfully tested more times and made operational rapidly.
So many differing stories in the media about, what is the truth? Is it a success, a failure or a partial-failure?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, it has failed. The link here http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/ says that there was some stability problem with the missile body. This probably indicates that:
1. Each new BM is in a way, an altogether different animal. Ground tests, etc can only go so far in this business (though France with the M-51 has been able tomake do with limited tests, all successful..USSR/Russia very different...as was USA during the early phase of the Trident II).
2. testing must be made more frequent. The rate now is better than it was 6-7 years ago. But this rate must increase. Something like 4-5 tests of each type (A-II, A-II+, A-III, A-V) every year should be the target.
3. Probably pushing A-III more than A-II makes sense. A-III must undergo operational trials ASAP.
4. A-I and Shourya seem to have had no problem with 7-8 succesful tests each. These take care of TSP.
5. Waiting for A-II+ was a serious mistake. Even if this were successful, it would take 4-5 years to go operational. This failure may cause a 6 month delay or so if they really push it. They could have pushed the old A-II and A-III instead. Even accounting for the failures of A-II, we would have a proven missile in reasonable numbers now.
6. Will A-V test be de;ayed because of this ?
7. Arunji, could the K-4 test have been a surface breaking test of the kind shown at the beginning of this video ?
http://video.mail.ru/mail/aviger/538/2173.html
That would explain why it would take 2017 or so till K-4 is operational.
8. A-II+ looks unrelated to K-4. It has a high L/D ratio. Certainly not like a land based version of an SLBM. Probably not the "canisterized A-II" Dr. Saraswat referred to.
9. For 3000-4000km type range, it will take 5 years for the deterrent to become more credible. This is changed if A-III gets successfully tested more times and made operational rapidly.