Agni V Missile

[Chinmoy]

Sorry, dear, we already knew most of these as early as 2002, for the rest, we knew them no late than 2010.
So, please don't make yourselves a joke.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2002.11460559
https://defpost.com/agni-ii-successfully-launched-by-the-strategic-forces-command/





The test was carried out by Strategic Forces Command, that is a user trial, not some new development test.



Yes, 65% of its subsystems are made in India based on Russian blue print, that is what JV is about.

When you know all this, then why you keep on whinning about it? A2 was inducted back in 2001, much before the upgrades been implemented. The inducted system was not a TD, but a complete system. By quoting the reports, you have made a joke out of yourself.

Time and again I have said that for us user trail as well as development trial goes hand in hand. Which part of this simple line is not understandable for you. For once if you would stop comparing the working method of India with others, you would see the fact. Test carried out by SFC doesn't mean that DRDO is not involved in it. As I have said earlier, only 1 out of 5 test would be carried by solely by user. For other's, there would always be DRDO scientist and developer engaged in it.

As far as JV is concerned, India holds 51% stake in BRAHMOS. If all the subsystems would have been based on Russian blueprint, then India would not have taken more then a decade to build them from scratch. But anyway I can't blame you for not knowing this. Because you are from a culture, who has etched out a name for itself in industrial espionage and stealing blueprints and stamping logo on reverse engineered products.

 

[TheVarun]

What's the point of all these harangues, no smoking?

 

[no smoking]

Here read about 85% indigenous Brahmos-

http://www.janes.com/article/79884/india-s-l-t-develops-inclined-launcher-for-brahmos-cruise-missile

Please read it again:

"Mishra also said that 85% of the components of the two-stage BrahMos, which currently has a range of 292 km, WILL SOON be made in India."

 

[Jameson Emoni]

Agni v is the much touted and hyped missile system of this decade and a pain in the enemies a** especially Chinese. :blah:

It was designed by a group of psychologists with an explicit aim of inducing into Pakistanese and Chinese an endless series of insomnia.

 

[no smoking]

When you know all this, then why you keep on whinning about it? A2 was inducted back in 2001, much before the upgrades been implemented. The inducted system was not a TD, but a complete system. By quoting the reports, you have made a joke out of yourself.

Because all your secret upgrades (most of them are original designs not upgrades) have been done before 2010, I really don’t see why you keep whinning about the so called new development?

Time and again I have said that for us user trail as well as development trial goes hand in hand. Which part of this simple line is not understandable for you. For once if you would stop comparing the working method of India with others, you would see the fact. Test carried out by SFC doesn't mean that DRDO is not involved in it. As I have said earlier, only 1 out of 5 test would be carried by solely by user. For other's, there would always be DRDO scientist and developer engaged in it.

It was you who didn’t read what we discussed. This discussion is all about the test number of India missiles. As I pointed out, if you want your strategic force to carry out first strike, you need more tests for every new type of missile and existing type of missiles. India doesn’t do that way. For example, Agni-2 was tested only 3 times before production started after Aug 2004, and it was not until 2009 that user trials began, the first 2 user trials were failed. This implies the technical problems in the production and also the problem of development test. So, from the example of Agni-2, we can find that India carries far less tests on both types (technical test and user trials). Yes, you can argue that India is working in different way comparing to others. But as the performance tells you, this is the way of saving money not a good way of keeping quality.

As far as JV is concerned, India holds 51% stake in BRAHMOS. If all the subsystems would have been based on Russian blueprint, then India would not have taken more then a decade to build them from scratch. But anyway I can't blame you for not knowing this. Because you are from a culture, who has etched out a name for itself in industrial espionage and stealing blueprints and stamping logo on reverse engineered products.

Oh, please, you don’t even know your own missile’s development history?

The agreement of JV was signed in Jul 1999, the first successful launch took place on June 12, 2001, which is only 2 years not 10 years as you said. Please tell me how did India took only 2 years to “build them from scratch”, and more interestingly, the Brahmos was displayed in Moscow exhibition in the same year.

And the first induction of Brahmos in navy begans with INS Rajput in 2005, again, not the 10 years you talked about. So, please do your homework first.

http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=1&sid=2

 

[no smoking]

What's the point of all these harangues, no smoking?

The point is Chinese and Indian missiles technologies and battle ready level are far behind nuclear superpowers, both countries are in no position to even think about nuclear first strike. All we can do is making sure we won't be involved in the conflict of these 2.

Thanks to the wisdom of both countries leader, we didn't see the nuclear warhead exploding above our head. I don't want to see my children's future destroyed by the stupidity of fanboys, no matter he is Indian or Chinese.

 

[prohumanity]

Once a Chinese General said " a cat is good enough..as long as it catches mice" Meaning as weapon is good
as long as it is able to damage the enemy severely and successfully.
This debate about which missile is better than the other is redundant . If a country can cause severe loss and deaths to the opponent country's citizens ...its game of equality. Nobody will sit and analyse which missile was better technologically. The killing power is all that matters.

 

[Chinmoy]

Because all your secret upgrades (most of them are original designs not upgrades) have been done before 2010, I really don’t see why you keep whinning about the so called new development?

Mr Intelligent.............. Open your eyes and look back few pages. A2 was inducted in service during NDA rule in 2001. But after that too it had undergone development. Its design was not freezed after induction. Where I said that its development were only after 2010? Could you dare to pint it?
So stop whinning right now. And from where you got the idea that the original design was implemented posted induction? Post induction and production, you implement upgrades, not original design.

It was you who didn’t read what we discussed. This discussion is all about the test number of India missiles. As I pointed out, if you want your strategic force to carry out first strike, you need more tests for every new type of missile and existing type of missiles. India doesn’t do that way. For example, Agni-2 was tested only 3 times before production started after Aug 2004, and it was not until 2009 that user trials began, the first 2 user trials were failed. This implies the technical problems in the production and also the problem of development test. So, from the example of Agni-2, we can find that India carries far less tests on both types (technical test and user trials). Yes, you can argue that India is working in different way comparing to others. But as the performance tells you, this is the way of saving money not a good way of keeping quality.

Atleast you agree with something. But for your kind information.

1st test of A2 in 11April 1999 was a success. 2nd trial of A2 in 17 January 2001 was a success. It was after this that the production was started and induction began.3rd test of A2 done on 29 August 2004 and this was for enhanced range and this development is after induction. And remember, this was a success too. So the first failure of A2 was on May 2009 when they were testing an enhanced guidance which was previously tested in A3. Then the maiden Night trail failed which has been a success in 2nd attempt.

So yes, as I already mentioned, it is to save money. But eventually when you base your development on tried and tested models, you could go easy on future projects. Quality comes with experience of making something from scratch. Not from quantity produced on someones else blueprint.

Oh, please, you don’t even know your own missile’s development history?

The agreement of JV was signed in Jul 1999, the first successful launch took place on June 12, 2001, which is only 2 years not 10 years as you said. Please tell me how did India took only 2 years to “build them from scratch”, and more interestingly, the Brahmos was displayed in Moscow exhibition in the same year.

And the first induction of Brahmos in navy begans with INS Rajput in 2005, again, not the 10 years you talked about. So, please do your homework first.

http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=1&sid=2

Oh please try to apply brain before quoting anything. Let me requote myself for sake of your convenience.

As far as JV is concerned, India holds 51% stake in BRAHMOS. If all the subsystems would have been based on Russian blueprint, then India would not have taken more then a decade to build them from scratch.

Did I mentioned anywhere that we took a decade to make BRAHMOS anywhere here. I was merely quoting on the timeline it took us for developing the sub components which according to you are based on Russian blueprints.

PS: Please try to keep your brain and mind open for others thought to grab on ideas and understand.

 

[no smoking]

hinmoy, post: 1436634, member: 16906"]Mr Intelligent.............. Open your eyes and look back few pages. A2 was inducted in service during NDA rule in 2001. But after that too it had undergone development. Its design was not freezed after induction. Where I said that its development were only after 2010? Could you dare to pint it?[/QUOTE]


I simply gave the 2017 failure as example of user trial failure when member Kshithij's claim that India has no user trial failure. You jumped in and gave me a "Do you know" series with a assumption "Of course you don't know". You better re-read what I said. I only answer your question by pointing out all these "Do you know" updates happened before 2010, so EVERYBODY KNOW. Then I asked you what is the new development involved in 2017, you haven't given any answer yet.

So stop whinning right now. And from where you got the idea that the original design was implemented posted induction? Post induction and production, you implement upgrades, not original design.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about "original design was implemented after induction"?

1st test of A2 in 11April 1999 was a success. 2nd trial of A2 in 17 January 2001 was a success. It was after this that the production was started and induction began.3rd test of A2 done on 29 August 2004 and this was for enhanced range and this development is after induction. And remember, this was a success too. So the first failure of A2 was on May 2009 when they were testing an enhanced guidance which was previously tested in A3. Then the maiden Night trail failed which has been a success in 2nd attempt.

Ok, we should sort out the series tests of Agni-2 before any further discussion.


1. The production was only started after 2004 test not 2001;

2. There was no new development on the missile tested in 2004, the so called “enhanced range” was within the original design requirement;

3. There was no test after Aug 29, 2004 until May 2009;

4. The first user trial happened in May 2009, failed. There was no new development in the tested missile as this missile was RANDOMLY selected from the army’s pool of missiles to conduct “a repeat launch”.

5. The second user trial failed in Nov 2009. Again, the purpose of this test was to validate procedures for night firing, there was no source suggesting the “new navigation system” integrated. Both failures were due to the

6. After these 2 successive failures, the Agi-2 successfully tested in May 2010, Sep 2011, Aug 2012, Apr 2013 and Nov 2014.

7. Then, again, there was no test until 2017, very strange.

8. The missile with new navigation system and enhanced range was Agni-II PLUS, which was tested in Dec 2010 with a failure, but later continued with name Agni-IV.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/183609/india’s-agni_ii-failure-needs-evaluation,-not-flagellation.html


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0096340210381334


http://www.rediff.com/news/report/upgraded-agni-2-missile-test-fired/20101210.htm


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/agni-ii-plus-missile-test-fails-in-orissa-441607


So, form the history of Agni-2 tests, we can find the problem: the operational missile wasn’t tested every year. For the first break (2004 – 2009), it can be explained with production problem. But between 20014 and 2017, there was no test again, and the next test in 2017 was a failure. Then you have to question about the battle readiness of the missile group.

So yes, as I already mentioned, it is to save money. But eventually when you base your development on tried and tested models, you could go easy on future projects.

This conclusion is correct only when you take a very small forward step each time.

Quality comes with experience of making something from scratch. Not from quantity produced on someones else blueprint.

Wrong. Generally, for any weapon, there are two stages:

1. Technic verification: the verification of blueprint. This stage is to prove the design of the weapon has satisfied all the customer requirements. R&D deportment is responsible for this part;

2. Production verification: this part is the responsibility of manufacturing department, they have to setup the production line specific for this weapon, design/install new machine for new components, design new processing procedures/new standards. In one sentence, it is their duty to sort out all potential issues affecting quality. That is where the most quality problems occurred.


If we use Agni-2 as example, the 3 tests between 1999 and 2004 were technical trial to verify the design. Then it entered the production stage. Obviously, it took India quite long time to complete the production line and produce the first batch of missiles. But it is understandable since at the time India was still at early stage of missile development. And it is also understandable that first 2 tests failed for a new product. Thereafter, we can see the quality improved with next 4 successes.


But the question came up with the next few years: there was no test until 2017. That was strange because generally armed force should test a random example in every production batch. This is the necessary step to keep the production department in check.


There are also some quality issues caused by the daily storage and maintenance. That is why military need to test a random example from certain aged stock at least once a year. Most of the quality issues only expose during the flight.


So, you can see, experience can certainly help improving quality, but periodic test is far more important.

Did I mentioned anywhere that we took a decade to make BRAHMOS anywhere here. I was merely quoting on the timeline it took us for developing the sub components which according to you are based on Russian blueprints.

Firstly, you are not developing the sub components from scratch as you already accessed Russian sub-components and their blue prints for at least production purpose.

Secondly, the fact that the new indigenous components are fit back in the existing Brahmos design instead of next generation Brahmos tells me it is based on Russian blueprint because:

1. This datalink, data format, transferring rate, working model, even the shape/weight of this indigenous component must match with other Russian component. You can’t change them. When these were decided, there is no much for Indian scientists to develop;

2. From the designer’s perspective, there is no need to develop a completely new Indian seeker for an old missile, it is just like spending all the time/money to develop a 486 CPU with the purpose of fitting into a 286 PC, it doesn’t make sense economically.

 

[sayareakd]

Ok, we should sort out the series tests of Agni-2 before any further discussion.


1. The production was only started after 2004 test not 2001;

BDL had first done limited serial production of all major missile and later on production has started.
Agni 2 (named later on as Agni 2, earlier it was just Agni) which was actually Agni-TD improved version.
Even in Kargil was Agni 2 were armed and ready to be used with nukes along with Prithvis. This was in 1999.

 

[Kshithij]

But between 20014 and 2017, there was no test again, and the next test in 2017 was a failure

The 2017 failure was in the booster rather in the missile itself. Agni 2 has lot of qialqua issues. In the early 2000s, Indian quality control was very bad and many of the rocket parts were only semi automated in manufacturing.

 

[no smoking]

The 2017 failure was in the booster rather in the missile itself. Agni 2 has lot of qialqua issues. In the early 2000s, Indian quality control was very bad and many of the rocket parts were only semi automated in manufacturing.

So, your understanding is: booster is not part of missile?
That is first time to hear it.

 

[no smoking]

BDL had first done limited serial production of all major missile and later on production has started.
Agni 2 (named later on as Agni 2, earlier it was just Agni) which was actually Agni-TD improved version.
Even in Kargil was Agni 2 were armed and ready to be used with nukes along with Prithvis. This was in 1999.
View attachment 25894

Firstly, there was no mention of your claim that Agni-2 was armed with nukes in 1999 in your quote;
Secondly, the scientist himself claimed in your quote that India only got 2 Agni-2 prototype in 2000, which obviously not suitable for nuclear arm unless the India leaders were too desperate;
Thirdly, he claimed the serial production started already, the problem is the first user trial started in 2009, what was India strategic force had been doing in the 8 years? Playing finger?

 

[Chinmoy]

hinmoy, post: 1436634, member: 16906"]Mr Intelligent.............. Open your eyes and look back few pages. A2 was inducted in service during NDA rule in 2001. But after that too it had undergone development. Its design was not freezed after induction. Where I said that its development were only after 2010? Could you dare to pint it?

I simply gave the 2017 failure as example of user trial failure when member Kshithij's claim that India has no user trial failure. You jumped in and gave me a "Do you know" series with a assumption "Of course you don't know". You better re-read what I said. I only answer your question by pointing out all these "Do you know" updates happened before 2010, so EVERYBODY KNOW. Then I asked you what is the new development involved in 2017, you haven't given any answer yet.





Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about "original design was implemented after induction"?





Ok, we should sort out the series tests of Agni-2 before any further discussion.


1. The production was only started after 2004 test not 2001;

2. There was no new development on the missile tested in 2004, the so called “enhanced range” was within the original design requirement;

3. There was no test after Aug 29, 2004 until May 2009;

4. The first user trial happened in May 2009, failed. There was no new development in the tested missile as this missile was RANDOMLY selected from the army’s pool of missiles to conduct “a repeat launch”.

5. The second user trial failed in Nov 2009. Again, the purpose of this test was to validate procedures for night firing, there was no source suggesting the “new navigation system” integrated. Both failures were due to the

6. After these 2 successive failures, the Agi-2 successfully tested in May 2010, Sep 2011, Aug 2012, Apr 2013 and Nov 2014.

7. Then, again, there was no test until 2017, very strange.

8. The missile with new navigation system and enhanced range was Agni-II PLUS, which was tested in Dec 2010 with a failure, but later continued with name Agni-IV.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/183609/india’s-agni_ii-failure-needs-evaluation,-not-flagellation.html


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0096340210381334


http://www.rediff.com/news/report/upgraded-agni-2-missile-test-fired/20101210.htm


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/agni-ii-plus-missile-test-fails-in-orissa-441607


So, form the history of Agni-2 tests, we can find the problem: the operational missile wasn’t tested every year. For the first break (2004 – 2009), it can be explained with production problem. But between 20014 and 2017, there was no test again, and the next test in 2017 was a failure. Then you have to question about the battle readiness of the missile group.







This conclusion is correct only when you take a very small forward step each time.





Wrong. Generally, for any weapon, there are two stages:

1. Technic verification: the verification of blueprint. This stage is to prove the design of the weapon has satisfied all the customer requirements. R&D deportment is responsible for this part;

2. Production verification: this part is the responsibility of manufacturing department, they have to setup the production line specific for this weapon, design/install new machine for new components, design new processing procedures/new standards. In one sentence, it is their duty to sort out all potential issues affecting quality. That is where the most quality problems occurred.


If we use Agni-2 as example, the 3 tests between 1999 and 2004 were technical trial to verify the design. Then it entered the production stage. Obviously, it took India quite long time to complete the production line and produce the first batch of missiles. But it is understandable since at the time India was still at early stage of missile development. And it is also understandable that first 2 tests failed for a new product. Thereafter, we can see the quality improved with next 4 successes.


But the question came up with the next few years: there was no test until 2017. That was strange because generally armed force should test a random example in every production batch. This is the necessary step to keep the production department in check.


There are also some quality issues caused by the daily storage and maintenance. That is why military need to test a random example from certain aged stock at least once a year. Most of the quality issues only expose during the flight.


So, you can see, experience can certainly help improving quality, but periodic test is far more important.





Firstly, you are not developing the sub components from scratch as you already accessed Russian sub-components and their blue prints for at least production purpose.

Secondly, the fact that the new indigenous components are fit back in the existing Brahmos design instead of next generation Brahmos tells me it is based on Russian blueprint because:

1. This datalink, data format, transferring rate, working model, even the shape/weight of this indigenous component must match with other Russian component. You can’t change them. When these were decided, there is no much for Indian scientists to develop;

2. From the designer’s perspective, there is no need to develop a completely new Indian seeker for an old missile, it is just like spending all the time/money to develop a 486 CPU with the purpose of fitting into a 286 PC, it doesn’t make sense economically.[/QUOTE]

You would not have written such a useless long response if you would have followed up the Missile development programme of India. For a layman like you, let me give a brief history of Agni series and specific reasons for coming up with different versions and what improvements been made in each of these.

Agni 1 : Just a tech demonstrator. It was designed to conduct and demonstrate Re-entry technology.

Agni 2 : Project to envisage Industrial capability buildup.

Agni 3 : Project to implement new building blocks in missile tech like Maraging steel and composite motor rocket engine for lighter missiles and longer range.

Agni 4 : Project to implement accuracy over longer range for delivering lower payloads for higher effectiveness. Components like Ring Laser Gyro were first time integrated and tested in it.

Agni 5 : Project to realize a true ICBM buildup capability.

So basically A1 and A2 were tech demo rather then full fledged system. Now lets have a look at test launch for each of them.

A2 first test on 1999
A2 second test 2001
A2 third test 2004
A3 first test 2006
A3 second test 2007
A3 third test 2008
A2 forth test 2009
A2 fifth test 2009
A3 fourth test 2010
A2 sixth test 2010. This was A2 prime which was later classified as A4.
A2 seventh test 2011.
A4 first test 2011
A 5 first test 2012
A2 eighth test 2012
A3 fifth test 2012
A4 second test 2012
A2 ninth test 2013
A5 second test 2013
A3 sixth test 2013
A4 third test 2014
A4 fourth test 2014
A5 third test 2015
A3 seventh test 2015
A4 fifth test 2015
A5 fourth test 2016
A4 sixth test 2017
A3 eighth test 2017
A5 fifth test 2018
A5 sixth test 2018

So when you basically whined about not testing A2 from 2004 to 2009, you have overlooked the fact that we tested A3 three times during this time frame. The improvements of A3 were later implemented in A2 even before 2010 and improvements of both implemented in A4 and improvements of all three are implemented in A5. And A2 was first time tested for 1500km range and it was later during 2004 when its range has been extended to 2500.

Because all your secret upgrades (most of them are original designs not upgrades) have been done before 2010, I really don’t see why you keep whinning about the so called new development?

The underlined part of yours didn't took into regard the fact that 2500 km range was not what intended for A2 at time of design. It was a development, not original design. And as per erstwhile Defence Minister of India, George Fernandez, A2 entered production into 2001-2002 and its induction was under way. It was not in 2004.

Regarding your knowledge of JV and development of sub component design of BRAHMOS, one noob question from me to a layman like you. When you use a fountain pen and have to use a different set of ink in it, do you think that the manufacturer of ink world around might have obtained the formula by industrial espionage rather then R&D? Because we could use ink by different manufacturer in the same pen without hampering its performance. But anyway I can't expect this much of knowledge from anyone who is world known for their copycat image.

 

[Chinmoy]

hinmoy, post: 1436634, member: 16906"]Mr Intelligent.............. Open your eyes and look back few pages. A2 was inducted in service during NDA rule in 2001. But after that too it had undergone development. Its design was not freezed after induction. Where I said that its development were only after 2010? Could you dare to pint it?

I simply gave the 2017 failure as example of user trial failure when member Kshithij's claim that India has no user trial failure. You jumped in and gave me a "Do you know" series with a assumption "Of course you don't know". You better re-read what I said. I only answer your question by pointing out all these "Do you know" updates happened before 2010, so EVERYBODY KNOW. Then I asked you what is the new development involved in 2017, you haven't given any answer yet.





Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about "original design was implemented after induction"?





Ok, we should sort out the series tests of Agni-2 before any further discussion.


1. The production was only started after 2004 test not 2001;

2. There was no new development on the missile tested in 2004, the so called “enhanced range” was within the original design requirement;

3. There was no test after Aug 29, 2004 until May 2009;

4. The first user trial happened in May 2009, failed. There was no new development in the tested missile as this missile was RANDOMLY selected from the army’s pool of missiles to conduct “a repeat launch”.

5. The second user trial failed in Nov 2009. Again, the purpose of this test was to validate procedures for night firing, there was no source suggesting the “new navigation system” integrated. Both failures were due to the

6. After these 2 successive failures, the Agi-2 successfully tested in May 2010, Sep 2011, Aug 2012, Apr 2013 and Nov 2014.

7. Then, again, there was no test until 2017, very strange.

8. The missile with new navigation system and enhanced range was Agni-II PLUS, which was tested in Dec 2010 with a failure, but later continued with name Agni-IV.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/183609/india’s-agni_ii-failure-needs-evaluation,-not-flagellation.html


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0096340210381334


http://www.rediff.com/news/report/upgraded-agni-2-missile-test-fired/20101210.htm


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/agni-ii-plus-missile-test-fails-in-orissa-441607


So, form the history of Agni-2 tests, we can find the problem: the operational missile wasn’t tested every year. For the first break (2004 – 2009), it can be explained with production problem. But between 20014 and 2017, there was no test again, and the next test in 2017 was a failure. Then you have to question about the battle readiness of the missile group.







This conclusion is correct only when you take a very small forward step each time.





Wrong. Generally, for any weapon, there are two stages:

1. Technic verification: the verification of blueprint. This stage is to prove the design of the weapon has satisfied all the customer requirements. R&D deportment is responsible for this part;

2. Production verification: this part is the responsibility of manufacturing department, they have to setup the production line specific for this weapon, design/install new machine for new components, design new processing procedures/new standards. In one sentence, it is their duty to sort out all potential issues affecting quality. That is where the most quality problems occurred.


If we use Agni-2 as example, the 3 tests between 1999 and 2004 were technical trial to verify the design. Then it entered the production stage. Obviously, it took India quite long time to complete the production line and produce the first batch of missiles. But it is understandable since at the time India was still at early stage of missile development. And it is also understandable that first 2 tests failed for a new product. Thereafter, we can see the quality improved with next 4 successes.


But the question came up with the next few years: there was no test until 2017. That was strange because generally armed force should test a random example in every production batch. This is the necessary step to keep the production department in check.


There are also some quality issues caused by the daily storage and maintenance. That is why military need to test a random example from certain aged stock at least once a year. Most of the quality issues only expose during the flight.


So, you can see, experience can certainly help improving quality, but periodic test is far more important.





Firstly, you are not developing the sub components from scratch as you already accessed Russian sub-components and their blue prints for at least production purpose.

Secondly, the fact that the new indigenous components are fit back in the existing Brahmos design instead of next generation Brahmos tells me it is based on Russian blueprint because:

1. This datalink, data format, transferring rate, working model, even the shape/weight of this indigenous component must match with other Russian component. You can’t change them. When these were decided, there is no much for Indian scientists to develop;

2. From the designer’s perspective, there is no need to develop a completely new Indian seeker for an old missile, it is just like spending all the time/money to develop a 486 CPU with the purpose of fitting into a 286 PC, it doesn’t make sense economically.

You would not have written such a useless long response if you would have followed up the Missile development programme of India. For a layman like you, let me give a brief history of Agni series and specific reasons for coming up with different versions and what improvements been made in each of these.

Agni 1 : Just a tech demonstrator. It was designed to conduct and demonstrate Re-entry technology.

Agni 2 : Project to envisage Industrial capability buildup.

Agni 3 : Project to implement new building blocks in missile tech like Maraging steel and composite motor rocket engine for lighter missiles and longer range.

Agni 4 : Project to implement accuracy over longer range for delivering lower payloads for higher effectiveness. Components like Ring Laser Gyro were first time integrated and tested in it.

Agni 5 : Project to realize a true ICBM buildup capability.

So basically A1 and A2 were tech demo rather then full fledged system. Now lets have a look at test launch for each of them.

A2 first test on 1999
A2 second test 2001
A2 third test 2004
A3 first test 2006
A3 second test 2007
A3 third test 2008
A2 forth test 2009
A2 fifth test 2009
A3 fourth test 2010
A2 sixth test 2010. This was A2 prime which was later classified as A4.
A2 seventh test 2011.
A4 first test 2011
A 5 first test 2012
A2 eighth test 2012
A3 fifth test 2012
A4 second test 2012
A2 ninth test 2013
A5 second test 2013
A3 sixth test 2013
A4 third test 2014
A4 fourth test 2014
A5 third test 2015
A3 seventh test 2015
A4 fifth test 2015
A5 fourth test 2016
A4 sixth test 2017
A3 eighth test 2017
A5 fifth test 2018
A5 sixth test 2018

So when you basically whined about not testing A2 from 2004 to 2009, you have overlooked the fact that we tested A3 three times during this time frame. The improvements of A3 were later implemented in A2 even before 2010 and improvements of both implemented in A4 and improvements of all three are implemented in A5. And A2 was first time tested for 1500km range and it was later during 2004 when its range has been extended to 2500.

Because all your secret upgrades (most of them are original designs not upgrades) have been done before 2010, I really don’t see why you keep whinning about the so called new development?

The underlined part of yours didn't took into regard the fact that 2500 km range was not what intended for A2 at time of design. It was a development, not original design. And as per erstwhile Defence Minister of India, George Fernandez, A2 entered production into 2001-2002 and its induction was under way. It was not in 2004.

Regarding your knowledge of JV and development of sub component design of BRAHMOS, one noob question from me to a layman like you. When you use a fountain pen and have to use a different set of ink in it, do you think that the manufacturer of ink world around might have obtained the formula by industrial espionage rather then R&D? Because we could use ink by different manufacturer in the same pen without hampering its performance. But anyway I can't expect this much of knowledge from anyone who is world known

 

[no smoking]

I am really impressed by your rhetoric and skill of twisting the fact.

You would not have written such a useless long response if you would have followed up the Missile development programme of India. For a layman like you, let me give a brief history of Agni series and specific reasons for coming up with different versions and what improvements been made in each of these.


Agni 1 : Just a tech demonstrator. It was designed to conduct and demonstrate Re-entry technology.

……


So basically A1 and A2 were tech demo rather then full fledged system. Now lets have a look at test launch for each of them.

That is very interesting story. Based on the latest report about India nuclear force 2017


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2017.1337998


In 2017, India has deployed 20 Agni-1 lauchers and 16 Agni-2 lauchers, only 6 Agni-3. In other words, Agni-1 and Agni-2 are currently the backbone of India’s nuclear deterrence. I really don’t know why country produces so many “tech demo”.


And based on Sayareaked’s quote, India built up a production line of up to 18 missiles per year in 2000 for Agni-2 which you claim to be “tech demo”. Was your government stupid or you are stupid?

So when you basically whined about not testing A2 from 2004 to 2009, you have overlooked the fact that we tested A3 three times during this time frame. The improvements of A3 were later implemented in A2 even before 2010 and improvements of both implemented in A4 and improvements of all three are implemented in A5.

Only those who have no experience in manufacturing industries will come up with this kind of amateur logic:

1. When you declare the missile enters the production stage and your production line is ready, you have to start production. Nobody will cancel the production plan for the reason of future development, because it will waste a big amount of money and bring in unknown tech risks;

2. As long as your production line starts to roll out missiles, you need to test them each year for quality control and also the training of your nuclear force;

3. If there is some new sub-systems can be shared between Agni-2 and Agni-3, the normal procedure is you should test this sub-system in a mature missile (Agni-2) that will minimize the tech uncertainty. After the success on Agni-2, then you can integrate it in Agni-3;

And A2 was first time tested for 1500km range and it was later during 2004 when its range has been extended to 2500. The underlined part of yours didn't took into regard the fact that 2500 km range was not what intended for A2 at time of design. It was a development, not original design. And as per erstwhile Defence Minister of India, George Fernandez, A2 entered production into 2001-2002 and its induction was under way. It was not in 2004.

Really?? If the 2500km range is not original design, how did everyone in the world already know this missile was a 2500km missile in 1999?

I know why: simply because the trajectory of 1999 test was designed to simulate a range of 2800 km.


Your claim of range extension is a new development is also quite ridiculous. Extending range from 1500 to 2500km, only replacing the material of the whole missile or engine can make that happen. That will make it a new missile which means you have start the whole testing procedure from the beginning again. Then your project manager just wasted your country a big fortune.

Regarding your knowledge of JV and development of sub component design of BRAHMOS, one noob question from me to a layman like you. When you use a fountain pen and have to use a different set of ink in it, do you think that the manufacturer of ink world around might have obtained the formula by industrial espionage rather then R&D? Because we could use ink by different manufacturer in the same pen without hampering its performance. But anyway I can't expect this much of knowledge from anyone who is world known

The example you give shows how ignorant you are about this system: you don’t need to think about pen when you develop a new type of ink because ink doesn’t affect other part of pen except jamming. However, in the case of complicated system like seeker, that is the first thing you need to know as the design of missile will decide the size, shape, weight of your seeker.


Then you have think about the internal working model and communication with other subsystem. Opposing to your ink example, you can’t simply use seekers by different manufacturers in the same missile without big change as different manufacturers have different tech feature and different standard, especially when they come from different countries. And Russian weapon systems are the worst in this field.

 

[Chinmoy]

I am really impressed by your rhetoric and skill of twisting the fact.

You are? I am too really impressed by sheer stupidity of yours in seeing facts.

That is very interesting story. Based on the latest report about India nuclear force 2017


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2017.1337998


In 2017, India has deployed 20 Agni-1 lauchers and 16 Agni-2 lauchers, only 6 Agni-3. In other words, Agni-1 and Agni-2 are currently the backbone of India’s nuclear deterrence. I really don’t know why country produces so many “tech demo”.


And based on Sayareaked’s quote, India built up a production line of up to 18 missiles per year in 2000 for Agni-2 which you claim to be “tech demo”. Was your government stupid or you are stupid?

Do your pea sized brain remember the fact when I mentioned the fact that we can't afford to have multiple tech demos and test missiles? We have to work with what we have in absence of economic luxury. So even being designed as Tech Demos, when these missiles achieved there purpose, these were inducted in series.

Only those who have no experience in manufacturing industries will come up with this kind of amateur logic:

1. When you declare the missile enters the production stage and your production line is ready, you have to start production. Nobody will cancel the production plan for the reason of future development, because it will waste a big amount of money and bring in unknown tech risks;

2. As long as your production line starts to roll out missiles, you need to test them each year for quality control and also the training of your nuclear force;

3. If there is some new sub-systems can be shared between Agni-2 and Agni-3, the normal procedure is you should test this sub-system in a mature missile (Agni-2) that will minimize the tech uncertainty. After the success on Agni-2, then you can integrate it in Agni-3;

Just one base line for all these things. Did you know that A1 was integrated into service along with A2. Infact A1 was integrated into service during 2004, much later then A2. It was brought under production only when we achieved industrial level production realization.

There is no hard and fast rule that a tech demo can't be integrated into service.

Really?? If the 2500km range is not original design, how did everyone in the world already know this missile was a 2500km missile in 1999?

I know why: simply because the trajectory of 1999 test was designed to simulate a range of 2800 km.


Your claim of range extension is a new development is also quite ridiculous. Extending range from 1500 to 2500km, only replacing the material of the whole missile or engine can make that happen. That will make it a new missile which means you have start the whole testing procedure from the beginning again. Then your project manager just wasted your country a big fortune.

You are simply showing your level 1 idiocy over here. During recent AAD tests, we did used Prithvi series missiles to mimic trajectory of incoming 2000km range missiles. Does this mean that Prithvi has been designed with 2000km range target in mind? And where you confirmed this range from? Voice of America? Let me give you something to cry about.

There was a modified version of the Agni II known as the Agni II+ which was designed to have an extend range but failed during its test in 2010

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/m...on/missile-proliferation/india/agni-ii/#_ftn7

The example you give shows how ignorant you are about this system: you don’t need to think about pen when you develop a new type of ink because ink doesn’t affect other part of pen except jamming. However, in the case of complicated system like seeker, that is the first thing you need to know as the design of missile will decide the size, shape, weight of your seeker.


Then you have think about the internal working model and communication with other subsystem. Opposing to your ink example, you can’t simply use seekers by different manufacturers in the same missile without big change as different manufacturers have different tech feature and different standard, especially when they come from different countries. And Russian weapon systems are the worst in this field.

Now let me give you nincompoop a fact. BRAHMOS when inducted used a Russian base receiver for guidance. But on 2014 we did incorporated a G3OM receiver on it.

Desi G3OM receiver makes BrahMos smarter | India first nation to test it on a missile

https://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2014/07/desi-g3om-receiver-makes-brahmos.html

Now we didn't got this blueprint from Russia as they are even unwilling to provide us code for GLONASS itself.

But Russia remains unwilling to provide India with the “precision code”, although the two countries have signed joint statements about working together on GLONASS. MoD sources tell Business Standard that the matter remains “under discussion”.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/09/satellite-navigation-breakthrough-for.html

As far as Agni missile series is concerned, hear it from horse mouth. Ask someone to translate it for you.

 

[no smoking]

Do your pea sized brain remember the fact when I mentioned the fact that we can't afford to have multiple tech demos and test missiles? We have to work with what we have in absence of economic luxury. So even being designed as Tech Demos, when these missiles achieved there purpose, these were inducted in series.

So, basically, what you saying is that if the so called “tech demo” archieved the purpose, they are inducted in service, if not, it remains “tech demo” which means move on to next. Please tell me how it is different from other countries missile development procedure?

Just one base line for all these things. Did you know that A1 was integrated into service along with A2. Infact A1 was integrated into service during 2004, much later then A2. It was brought under production only when we achieved industrial level production realization. There is no hard and fast rule that a tech demo can't be integrated into service.

How did this late induction of Agni-1 proved anything about Agni-2? How did this “industrial level production realization” has anything to do with the number of test we discuss here?


I just simply tell you Agni-2 was never been developed as “tech demo” from beginning. It was designed as a missile with purpose of being operational.Agni-2 derive from Agni-TD which is the “Tech demo” you talked about. However, the program was tested between 1989 and 1994, then terminated. A lot people thought that was Agni-1, actually it was not because it was an amalgam of the Prithvi and the SLV-3 booster with purpose to test RV, the Agni-1 on the other hand is a single stage rocket which is exactly the same one for the first stage of Agni-2. Its first test happened in 2002.


https://idsa.in/idsacomments/agni-i...-than-flagellation-is-needed_sbmaharaj_150517


The reason of this wired thing happen is that during the Kargil war, India realised that she need a short range solid missile to cover the gap between the liquid Prithvi and Agni-2.


https://books.google.com.au/books?i...hDoAQhAMAQ#v=onepage&q=agni-1 missile&f=false

You are simply showing your level 1 idiocy over here. During recent AAD tests, we did used Prithvi series missiles to mimic trajectory of incoming 2000km range missiles. Does this mean that Prithvi has been designed with 2000km range target in mind? And where you confirmed this range from? Voice of America? Let me give you something to cry about.

Do you really understand what you are talking about? That is a TARGET missile built based on Prithiv only to simulate the re-entry SPEED and ANGLE , not the range, of a 2000km missile under the standard trajectory.


During Agni-2 first test, even though its whole flying distance is only 1500km, but by increasing the maximum height of the trajectory, the performance of components, especially the engine of the missile can be tested for full range.


If you don’t even know about these ballistic missile ABC, it is really waste my time to discuss with you about missile design. I simply can’t explain it to a guy who think replacing missile components is as simple as changing the brand of ink in a pen.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

So, basically, what you saying is that if the so called “tech demo” archieved the purpose, they are inducted in service, if not, it remains “tech demo” which means move on to next. Please tell me how it is different from other countries missile development procedure?





How did this late induction of Agni-1 proved anything about Agni-2? How did this “industrial level production realization” has anything to do with the number of test we discuss here?


I just simply tell you Agni-2 was never been developed as “tech demo” from beginning. It was designed as a missile with purpose of being operational.Agni-2 derive from Agni-TD which is the “Tech demo” you talked about. However, the program was tested between 1989 and 1994, then terminated. A lot people thought that was Agni-1, actually it was not because it was an amalgam of the Prithvi and the SLV-3 booster with purpose to test RV, the Agni-1 on the other hand is a single stage rocket which is exactly the same one for the first stage of Agni-2. Its first test happened in 2002.


https://idsa.in/idsacomments/agni-i...-than-flagellation-is-needed_sbmaharaj_150517


The reason of this wired thing happen is that during the Kargil war, India realised that she need a short range solid missile to cover the gap between the liquid Prithvi and Agni-2.


https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FsFcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=agni-1+missile&source=bl&ots=ru3ZN3dt3L&sig=sZZKyBhSXiKBnPS73qJfmt1kzGI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqwdfy1vfbAhUGp5QKHVigA1Y4HhDoAQhAMAQ#v=onepage&q=agni-1 missile&f=false






Do you really understand what you are talking about? That is a TARGET missile built based on Prithiv only to simulate the re-entry SPEED and ANGLE , not the range, of a 2000km missile under the standard trajectory.


During Agni-2 first test, even though its whole flying distance is only 1500km, but by increasing the maximum height of the trajectory, the performance of components, especially the engine of the missile can be tested for full range.


If you don’t even know about these ballistic missile ABC, it is really waste my time to discuss with you about missile design. I simply can’t explain it to a guy who think replacing missile components is as simple as changing the brand of ink in a pen.

There was absolutely nothing intelligent presented in that post. In other words, it was a complete waste of bandwidth.

As I asked you earlier, before you can talk about testing phase, you have to discuss the design phase. Which missile are you comparing Agni V against? Present the design of that missile first and then we can engage in what is called design analysis.

 

[sayareakd]

Firstly, there was no mention of your claim that Agni-2 was armed with nukes in 1999 in your quote;
Secondly, the scientist himself claimed in your quote that India only got 2 Agni-2 prototype in 2000, which obviously not suitable for nuclear arm unless the India leaders were too desperate;
Thirdly, he claimed the serial production started already, the problem is the first user trial started in 2009, what was India strategic force had been doing in the 8 years? Playing finger?

Chinese and their ultra superiority delusion.