Indian Missile News And Discussion

[Arun_S]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your said it.



Familiarity breeds contempt,

Testing breeds confidence !